
Copyrights 



COPYRIGHT DEPOSHV 



What is Socialism? 

An Exposition and a Criticism 

With Special Reference to the Movement in 
America and England 



BY 

JAMES BOYLE 

Private Secretary of Gov. Win. McKinley; former Consul of the United 
States at Liverpool, Eng. 

Author of -The Initiative and Referendum," "Organized Labor 
and Court Decisions," "The New Socialism," etc. 



THE SHAKESPEARE PRESS 
114-116 E. 28th Street 

NEW YORK 
1912 



JB77 



Copyright, 1912, 

BY 

James Boyle. 



I So 

^CI.A312735 



r 



I dedicate this book to 

$$y WLitz, 

Whose patience and encouragement have been of 
immeasurable value to me in my studies. 



"Socialism is so vague and contradictory that it cannot 
stand argument. Its very vagueness commends it to 
men who will not or cannot take the trouble to think, 
but in the long run the men who do think will win, if 
the discussion is only kept up." — Henry George, in let- 
ter to the Editor of the Financial Reform Almanac, Liv- 
erpool, Eng. 

"Class war is murder; class war is fratricide; class 
war is suicide." — Charles Bradlaugh (the English 
Radical), in his debate with H. M. Hyndman, the leader 
of British Marxian Socialism. 

"I want to tell you Socialists that . . . econom- 
ically, you are unsound; socially, you are wrong; indus- 
trially, you are an impossibility." — Samuel Gompers, 
President of the American Federation of Labor, at the 
annual meeting, at Boston, 1903. 



CONTENTS 

PAGE 

FOREWORD 13 

CHAPTER I 

INTRODUCTION . . . 15 

Two Remarkable Pronouncements .... 15 

Socialism in England 15 

Relation to Religion and Morality ' . . . . 17 

Variations and Agreements 20 

— In America 22 

Is Revolution Imminent? 24 

- Labor and Socialism . ... ... 25 

-Developments in America 26 

Socialism Already Here! 29 

Robert Owen, the Father of Modern Socialism . 30 

CHAPTER II 

WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 34 

~~ Origin of the Word "Socialism" 34 

Definitions . . . 34 

What is "Orthodox" Socialism? .... 39 

Not Anarchism, nor Communism .... 42 

Division of Labor's Products 45 

CHAPTER III 

IN ANCIENT DAYS . . 49 

Aboriginal Communism . . . . . .49 

The Family and Private Property .... 50 

7 



CONTENTS 

Examples of Ancient Socialism 54 

Athenian Socialism 55 

The "Solonic Law" 57 

In Peru, Mexico and Elsewhere .... 59 



CHAPTER IV 



LABOR'S ATTITUDE .... 

Trade Unionism versus Socialism 
British Politics and Trade Unionism 
The "Taff Vale Decision" . 
Labor Revolt, August, 191 1 . 
American Political-Labor Movement 
The Federation of Labor and Socialism 
Socialist Criticism of the Federation 

CHAPTER V 



64 
64 
65 
69 
72 

75 
78 
83 



UTOPIANISM 86 

Utopian Romances . . 86 

Experimental Utopianism . . . . . . 9° 

Secular Societies ' . 92 

Sectarian Communism 97 

CHAPTER VI 

STATE AND MUNICIPAL SOCIALISM ... 102 

Bismarck and State Socialism 102 

German Workmen's Insurance and Old Age Pen- 
sions 103 

State Socialism Defined 104 

State Socialism Through Taxing the Rich . . 106 

British Old-Age Pension Scheme .... 107 

Where the Money Comes From 109 

American State Socialism in 

Municipal Socialism 114 

A Costly Experiment . . . . . . .116 



CONTENTS 

CHAPTER VII 

CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM 

The Churches and Christian Socialism 
The Movement in England .... 
American Christian Socialism . 
Continental Christian Socialism 



121 

121 

123 
127 
130 



CHAPTER VIII 

MARXIAN SOCIALISM . . . . . . . 135 

The Fundamentals 135 

Marx's "Capital" 137 

The Marxian Theory of Values . . . .141 

"Surplus Value" 145 

Capitalism . . 147 

Collectivism 149 

The "Industrial Revolution" 150 

How Will Collectivism be Established? . . 154 

The Co-operative Commonwealth .... 159 

Socialism as Affecting Religion and the Family 161 

Socialism Involves Ethics as Well as Economics 166 
Wages and Distribution of Products . . . .170 

CHAPTER IX 

SOCIALISM IN AMERICA 176 

Backwardism of American Socialism . . .176 
The "International" and American Socialists . 179 
The "International" Transferred to New York . 182 

The Socialist Labor Party 183 

The Socialist Party 186 

Anarchism in America 192 

The Moyer-Haywood Murder Case . . . .197 

The McNamara Outrages . . . . . .199 

Present Outlook 200 



io CONTENTS 



CHAPTER X 

BRITISH SOCIALISM 203 

The Most Active Force in England .... 203 

Characteristics . . 204 

Socialism Essentially English in Origin . . 207 

John Ball, the First English Socialist . . . 210 

The "Industrial Revolution" in England . . 213 

The "Luddites" . 215 

The "Chartists" 217 

The "International" in England .... 223 

The Social Democratic Federation .... 227 

"Fabianism" 236 

The Independent Labor Party 239 

The Labor Party 244 

Socialism Submerges Trade Unionism . . . 248 

Has Socialism Been Halted? 252 

The Anti-Socialist Movement 256 



CHAPTER XI 

CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 260 

In Germany 260 

Modification of German Socialism .... 268 

French Socialism . . . 275 

The Movement in Austria 279 

Italian Socialism 282 

Russia's Revolutionary Socialism .... 284 

Belgian Socialism 291 

Socialism in Holland . . . . . . . 294 

In Switzerland . . 296 

In Denmark 3°° 

In Norway 302 

In Sweden 3°3 

Spain and Portugal 3°5 



CONTENTS II 

CHAPTER XII 

THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL" 307 

Numerical Strength of Socialism .... 310 

CHAPTER XIII 

CONCLUSION: A CRITICISM 314 

INDEX 333 



FOREWORD 

While making some Consular investigations of the 
municipal ownership and operation of certain "public 
utilities" in Great Britain some years ago, the writer 
was attracted to the study of the entire range of Social- 
ism. He can truly say that he approached and fol- 
lowed up the subject with an open and receptive mind. 
It is a boast of Socialists that no student can make an 
impartial examination of Collectivism without becoming 
an adherent at heart, even though he may never formally 
enroll himself as a "comrade." That has not been so in 
the case of the author. Profoundly impressed as he is 
with the idealism of the movement, and fully apprecia- 
tive of the beneficence and sound policy of many of the 
State's activities in spheres formerly reserved for indi- 
vidual enterprise, yet he has become firmly convinced 
that so-called Scientific or Modern Socialism — in its 
ultimate aim — is both ethically wrong and economically 
unsound and impracticable. He is confident in his own 
mind that an actual Collectivist Commonwealth would 
be a tragic failure; and he is also confident that the 
establishment of such a State — even as an experiment 
— is an impossibility within any measurable distance of 
time — at any rate in America. 

Of books on Socialism there are many; but almost 
without exception they are either too technical for the 
average reader or are distinctly one-sided. The aim of 

13 



14 FOREWORD 

the author has been to present a popular and impartial 
exposition of the different schools and phases of Social- 
ism, according to the recognized authorities; and he 
has endeavored to fairly and adequately state all propo- 
sitions and arguments even though he might rad- 
ically dissent therefrom. He has not intentionally mis- 
quoted or misrepresented any individual or school of 
thought. 



WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 



CHAPTER I 
INTRODUCTION 

Two Remarkable Pronouncements. 

Within recent years there have been remarkable pro- 
nouncements on Socialism by two famous men, who 
are representatives of the highest types of American 
and British citizenship — Ex-President Roosevelt and 
Ex-Premier Rosebery. Both vehemently denounced 
Modern Socialism. The pronouncement by Lord Rose- 
bery was in a speech delivered at London, on March 
12, 1908, he declaring that "Socialism is the end of all 
— Empire, religious faith, freedom, property; Social- 
ism is the death-blow to all!" And since then he has 
repeated and amplified this declaration. 

Socialism in England. 

Lord Rosebery's view is certainly shared by the vast 
majority of British subjects, who have a traditional 
horror of French Revolutionary Communism, with 
which Socialism has been associated in the popular mind 
in the past. But time has wrought ominous changes; 
and within the last decade there has been an amazing 

15 



16 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

growth of Socialism in England. It is only within the 
last few years that the British public have come to a 
full realization of the extent of the development of 
Socialism — this development being at first by a silent, 
unobtrusive, permeative, and almost stealthy Fabian 
process, but latterly by an open and defiant militant 
campaign, already boastfully confident of complete suc- 
cess. Thoughtful students of the times now recognize 
that the coming, if not the imminent, issue in England 
is not that of Tariff Reform, Home Rule, Female Suf- 
frage, the Abolishment of the House of Lords, the Dis- 
establishment of the Church — but Socialism! Having 
become alarmed, the British public are taking steps to 
meet the issue. Heretofore, Socialism has had the field 
practically to itself in England; but now, for the first 
time in its history, it is confronted with intelligent and 
organized opposition. The gigantic struggle which has 
commenced in Britain will be watched with absorbing 
interest on this side of the Atlantic. The tendency of 
much of the recent British legislation in response to 
demands of Labor-Socialists, must inevitably have a 
pauperizing influence upon the working people. Such 
virtues as self-help, thrift, personal independence, and 
individual initiative — and even national patriotism — are 
now openly laughed to scorn by many British Socialists 
as out of date. Not only in the creation of sentiment 
among the working people has the spirit of Socialism 
made tremendous progress in England during the last 
ten years, but in actual legislation, both national and 
local. Nevertheless, that Socialism in its quintessence, 
that is, Collectivism (the public ownership and control 
of the means of production, distribution and exchange), 
will be adopted by the British people, is unthinkable. 



INTRODUCTION 17 

As the greatest of all American economic Radicals, 
Henry George, wrote to an English editor: "Socialism 
is so vague and contradictory that it cannot stand argu- 
ment. Its very vagueness commends it to men who will 
not or cannot take the trouble to think, but in the long 
run the men who do think will win, if the discussion is 
only kept up." 

It can reasonably be expected that the critical dis- 
cussion and organized opposition against which British 
Socialism has now to contend, will finally win the day, 
although nothing can stop the progress of practical 
ameliorative legislation. But, in the meanwhile, organ- 
ized Labor has "cast the die"; and before it realizes 
that it has made a colossal blunder in surrendering itself 
to Socialism — before it is compelled by hard inexorable 
facts to understand that the "ultimate aim" of Socialism 
is wildly extravagant, destructively inconoclastic, and 
absolutely impracticable — there will probably be bitter 
times in the old Mother Land. Indeed, there have 
already been bitter times — in the unexampled Labor- 
Socialist outbreaks of 191 1. 

Relation to Religion and Morality. 

Ex-President Roosevelt's pronouncement against So- 
cialism appeared as an editorial in The Outlook (New 
York), March 20, 1909, and was his parting message 
to his fellow-countrymen before he went on his African 
hunting expedition. Here is a sample sentence in Mr. 
Roosevelt's editorial: 

The doctrinaire Socialists, the extremists, the men who 
represent the doctrine in its most advanced form, are, and 
must necessarily be, not only convinced opponents of private 
property, but also bitterly hostile to all religion and morality; 



18 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

in short, they must be opposed to all those principles through 
which alone, even an imperfect civilization can be built up 
by slow advances through the ages. 

When Ex-President Roosevelt wrote this fierce de- 
nunciation of Modern Socialism he was the voluntary 
spokesman of the vast majority of his fellow-country- 
men. His condemnation is quite natural as coming 
from a sturdy Individualist, a vigorous thinker, a fam- 
ily man with old-fashioned ideas of morals, and a con- 
servative in religious matters, whose conception of the 
Marxian theory is based on the writings and speeches 
of a certain group or school, which, it might be 
remarked, arrogates to itself the exclusive possession of 
"orthodoxy." 

Still, there are many Socialists whose views most cer- 
tainly cannot be stigmatized as immoral. They look 
upon the ultimate goal of Socialism, the Co-operative 
Commonwealth, as purely a political, an industrial and 
an economic condition of society, and deny that it would 
have any bearing upon religion or morals, except as 
improved environments naturally have a tendency to 
raise the social and ethical status of the human race; 
and, at any rate, they claim, morals and religion would 
be exclusively a private matter, under Socialism. This 
is the general professed public position of present-day 
organized Socialism in the United States, Great Britain, 
and Germany. 

But it can well be protested that these professions 
and pleadings are out of harmony with doctrines laid 
down by nearly all of the brainiest and most logically 
consistent of the exponents of what is generally recog- 
nized as orthodox Socialism. The logical application of 
the theories of Marxism precludes the pre-determina- 



INTRODUCTION 19 

tion, by conscious individual choice or concerted reso- 
lution, of the relation of the Co-operative Common- 
wealth toward morals or religion, or any of the ethical, 
social, or even political phases of public or private life. 
Orthodox Marxism asserts that the entire sociological 
and political structure can only take form as the logical 
outcome of a definite process of historical development, 
based upon the economic system prevailing at the time. 
Hence, the attitude of Socialism toward morality, the 
family, or religion, and the probable result of the appli- 
cation of Socialistic theories thereon, are to be judged 
not by the declarations or protests of individual Social- 
ists, nor even of international or national Socialist con- 
gresses, — seeking votes — but by the general philosophy 
and tendency of the movement, and there is no mistak- 
ing that philosophy and tendency, either from observa- 
tion and study or from the declarations of the founders 
and conceded leaders of the movement. 

The doctrine of the materialistic propulsive force of 
Socialism, — almost Oriental fatalism — as expounded by 
all the acknowledged orthodox followers of Marx, is not 
neutralized by the later expositions of amiable "trim- 
mers," who seek to reconcile Modern Socialism with 
firmly-grounded and tested economies and ethics. 

It is a noteworthy fact that in the English elections 
of 1909 the partial reversals of the astounding Socialist 
triumphs of 1906 were largely the result of the expose 
of the real position of Marxism in relation to religion 
and ethics. As early as 1894 Prof. Ely had foreseen 
what has been the greatest stumbling-block to the exten- 
sive and permanent development of Modern Socialism 
in English-speaking countries, for in the first edition 
(issued in the year named) of Socialism and Social 



20 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Reform, he says: "Socialism in England and America 
can be appreciated in its full strength only when it be- 
comes entirely emancipated from the materialistic con- 
ception of history advanced by Karl Marx; for in 
neither country can Socialism meet with favor when it 
finds its basis in materialism/' This is also the position 
of Kirkup, the English advocate of a "purified" Social- 
ism ; but it is also the position which is bitterly resented 
by the greatest advocates of Modern Socialism, living 
and dead. 

Variations and Agreements. 

The student is confronted with the fact that there are 
a variety of schools of Socialism; and he cannot fail 
to notice that some members of certain schools are as 
intolerant toward other schools as some "religionists" 
are with respect to members of other sects. It is the 
fashion of many Socialist writers to adopt toward oppo- 
nents either a lofty air of intellectual superiority, 
amounting to contemptuous patronage, or else a tone 
of abuse. They are impatient with disputants, and seem 
almost amazedly indignant that anybody should be so 
ignorantly presumptuous as to dare to question their 
assertions and deductions. When no other argument is 
handy, there is always the claim that the non-Socialist 
does not understand Socialism. This is especially true 
of those who proudly give the prefix "Marxian" to their 
particular brand. American Socialists are among the 
worst offenders in this regard. Most of the American 
Socialist journals are distinguished for abusiveness, and 
but few of them are worthy of perusal as exponents of 
a world-wide movement. It is quite in the order of 
things for Socialists to say that Mr. Roosevelt does 



INTRODUCTION 21 

not understand Socialism ; but he certainly has a knowl- 
edge of one kind. A leading representative of another 
variety, Bernard Shaw, the English Fabian, asserts 
that some of the self-styled Marxians are not fully read 
up in and probably could not understand the writings of 
Karl Marx, the arch-priest of Modern Socialism. And 
Bernard Shaw is probably correct. Kautsky, the Ger- 
man editor, is still hard at it issuing further volumes of 
Das Kapital, but there are probably very few men, 
either in America or England, who have read the entire 
half-dozen volumes forming the complete stupendous 
work, the notes of which (excluding the first volume) 
were turned over to Engels for compilation after the 
death of Marx, Kautsky taking up the work after the 
death of the former. 

Yet, there is one central point, one cardinal doctrine, 
as to which practically all Socialists, of all schools, are 
agreed, as an abstract proposition, and that is the col- 
lective ownership and control of the means of produc- 
tion, distribution and exchange, which can be operated 
"socially," for the equitable good of all. At first sight 
it would appear that an agreement upon this point — 
even though the agreement be only of a general nature 
— is sufficient reply to the charge that there are differ- 
ent and conflicting kinds of Socialism; but upon investi- 
gation it will be found that there are a number of rad- 
ical differences growing out of not only the interpreta- 
tion of Collectivism, but also as to its application. The 
Collectivist Commonwealth is such a nebulosity that no 
two Socialists can agree even as to its outline, let alone 
Its concrete substance. 

As to the other aspects and phases of Socialism, there 
is hopeless disagreement. When Socialists say, as some 



22 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

do, that there is only one kind of Socialism — and that 
is always the kind which they themselves preach — they 
unconsciously or deliberately shut their eyes to the facts. 
Next to the followers of Mr. Hyndman in England, the 
most professedly orthodox of them all are the Social 
Democracy of Germany, and they have considerably 
modified their attitude if not their doctrines within 
recent years. As to the British Socialists, the over- 
whelming majority of them are avowedly Fabian Oppor- 
tunists, notwithstanding the declarations of the "Labor- 
ites" in favor of "class-conscious" Revolutionary Social- 
ism, and their recent admission into the ranks of "Inter- 
nationalism/' the rallying cry of which is "class con- 
sciousness" and the downfall of Capitalism. 

In America. 

Coming to the United States, Socialism is "in the air." 
There is not, as yet, any American "school." The liter- 
ary leaders of the movement in this country, are, with 
few exceptions, adherents of rigid, cold, German Social- 
ist Calvinism. This is primarily owing to the fact that 
the establishment of Socialism in America was mainly 
through German revolutionary immigrants. Outside of 
the Christian Socialists — who are little else than senti- 
mentalists — the prevailing Socialism in this country is 
dominated by what the Anglo-American expounder, 
Spargo, designates as "the handful of German Socialist 
exiles in America, who sought to make the American 
workers swallow a mass of ill-digested Marxian the- 
ory." In this connection, Spargo quotes the greatest of 
all authorities next to Marx himself, Engels, who makes 
the following remarkable criticism of the German pre- 
sentation of Socialism in America: "The Germans 



INTRODUCTION 23 

have never understood how to apply themselves from 
their theory to the level which could set the American 
masses in motion; to a great extent they do not under- 
stand the theory itself, and treat it in a doctrinaire and 
dogmatic fashion. . . . It is a credo to them, not a 
guide of action." As to the unscientific, Opportunist, 
Fabian Socialism of England, Engels has this to say: 
"Here an instinctive Socialism is more and more taking 
possession of the masses, which, fortunately, is opposed 
to all distinct formulation according to the dogmas of 
one or the other so-called organizations." The German 
Socialists in America have not kept up with their com- 
rades of the Fatherland in economic evolution. Theo- 
retically, the leaders of Socialism in America are, as a 
rule, uncompromisingly revolutionary: not that they 
are in favor of a physical revolution to bring about the 
realization of their ideas, but that they believe — as Marx 
taught — that social and economic conditions will get 
worse and worse, until finally they will become unbear- 
able; and then, by a catastrophic change, through the 
proletariat securing control of the machinery of govern- 
ment, the Co-operative Commonwealth will be estab- 
lished ; that, in fact, the present economic and social 
state is past being mended, but must be ended: and its 
ending, and the substitution of Collectivism, constitute 
the "revolution" referred to. In justice to the "ad- 
vanced," "scientific" Socialists so vigorously condemned 
by Mr. Roosevelt, it is proper to keep this in mind, as 
many critics evidently interpret the word "revolution," 
used in this connection, to mean a resort to physical 
force. There are physical-force Socialists, but they are 
in an infinitesimal minority in such countries as the 
United States, Great Britain and Germany. Broadly 



24 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

speaking, the school in opposition to Revolutionary 
Socialism is that of the Fabians, who have shaped and 
directed the movement in England, and whose policy is, 
despite assertions to the contrary, considerably modify- 
ing Marxian Socialism throughout the world. This 
school — destined to be the predominant one — is also 
known as Opportunist and Constructive. American 
Socialism has already commenced to cast its hard Marx- 
ian shell, and is taking on the more adaptable garment 
of Fabianism, of a cut and color suited to American 
conditions. 

Is Revolution Imminent? 

Both in America and England there is a popular belief 
that Modern Socialism, irrespective of any particular 
school, is directly connected with, and is, indeed, the 
actual descendant of, French insurrectionary Commun- 
ism. This is the view taken by one of the most slashing 
of the English critics, W. Lawler Wilson, in a remark- 
able book, The Menace of Socialism. Mr. Wilson con- 
siders it practically certain that — 

i. A social revolution will break out in Europe within the 
next two or three years. 

2. This revolution will be more extensive in area and ter- 
rible in character than any that has occurred for two genera- 
tions past. 

3. The revolutionaries will win great temporary successes 
and will succeed in establishing local governments. 

4. The rebellion will be suppressed after much bloodshed, 
after which the Social Revolutionary movement as a whole 
will die out for the greater part of a generation. 

It is noteworthy that some Socialist writers take the 
same view that Mr. Wilson does, except that they be- 



INTRODUCTION 25 

lieve that the revolution will be permanently successful. 
But, at the same time, it is proper to repeat that most 
of the recognized representative authorities disclaim all 
idea of a physical revolution. 

Labor and Socialism. 

There are two different Socialist organizations ap- 
pealing to the suffrages of the American people, and 
both of them are based upon the "class consciousness" 
of the working men. Here it is pertinent to remark that 
there is no country in the world where — at present, at 
any rate — there is less class consciousness than in the 
United States, whether among the working men or any 
other element of the general citizenship. As Socialism 
has been presented to the American people, it has never 
(until recently) appealed to any considerable number 
of them, especially among the native element — not even 
to a large number of what, for the sake of definiteness, 
may be classed as the "proletariat." Socialism must be 
"Americanized" — that is, it must be formulated and 
modified to meet American ideas and conditions — before 
it can become a potential force in the political and social 
life of this country. It must be confessed that there are 
now circumstances and conditions in process of devel- 
opment which will not unlikely bring this about, irre- 
spective of the attitude of the present leaders of either 
Socialism or the Trade Union movement, which at pres- 
ent is not a mutually cordial one; and it is noteworthy 
that in this respect American organized Labor occupies 
an absolutely unique position, as this is the only pro- 
gressive country in the world in which the two move- 
ments are not allied, to a greater or less extent. In 
England, Socialism was nothing but a shadowy, far-off 



26 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

theory or cult, held by but a few, until an "alliance" with 
organized Labor was formed; and the cause which 
brought about this alliance was a judicial decision which 
Trade Unionists looked upon as an assault upon their 
organizations, by destroying them through bankrupting 
their treasuries, as they claimed. The judgment in 
question is what is known as the "Taff Vale decision/' 
making Trade Unions financially responsible for dam- 
ages in strikes and boycotts. Some such an incident 
may throw organized labor in this country into the arms 
of Socialism. It is a fact of grave significance that the 
special grievance of American organized Labor is one 
growing out of judicial decisions, it being claimed, in- 
deed, that in this respect American Trade Unionists are 
at a great disadvantage as compared with their British 
comrades. 

Developments in America. 

The American people are only just beginning to 
appreciate the profound importance of the question of 
Socialism. But until the last two years, organized 
Socialism has been but little in evidence in this country 
except during Presidential elections. It not only lacks 
effective organization, but it is indefinite in expression 
and aim. Unquestionably, the peculiar form of the 
American system of government — Federal and State — 
has something to do with the difficulty of focussing the 
theory upon conditions here, A characteristic difficulty 
which Socialism — and also Trade Unionism — has to 
contend against in America, as compared, say, with Eng- 
land, is one arising from the written Federal and State 
constitutions in this country. This fact makes it impos- 
sible — in a practical sense — for a State legislature or 



INTRODUCTION 27 

even for Congress to pass laws similar to many which 
have been passed by the British Parliament within the 
last few years. Reference is here made to laws grant- 
ing special privileges and immunities to organized La- 
bor, as is done in the new British Trades Disputes Act. 
But, apart from these considerations, the Co-operative 
Commonwealth has been too visionary, too theoretical, 
for the average, practical, "hurry-up" American to take 
much interest in it. Nevertheless, the general principles 
and mode of thought of the Socialists are now appealing 
to an ever-increasing number of Americans — and native 
Americans at that. The time was when Socialism, to 
the native American mind, was associated exclusively 
with recent arrivals from the Teutonic Fatherland, who 
discussed Karl Marx and the "coming revolution" over 
steins of lager beer ; but that day has passed. In the old 
countries it is mainly hatred of class distinctions which 
has turned the hopes of the proletariat to Socialism as 
the only means of their redemption, socially, industrially 
and politically. These class distinctions originally 
sprang from the hereditary privileges of the few, espe- 
cially as to the possession of the land; and it was no 
less an American than John Adams who said, "Those 
who own the land will rule the country." When the 
"industrial revolution" came about, these hereditary 
distinctions in Europe were supplemented by another 
difference almost as great, — that of the possession of 
the means of production by the few and the lack of own- 
ership of these means by the many. It is a matter of 
common remark among Americans, when they are frank 
with themselves, that class distinctions are now develop- 
ing in this country. While there is an absence of hered- 
itary privileges, the distinction between the "haves" and 



28 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

the "have-nots" is all the time growing; and while there 
is not the hopeless, squalid poverty and pauperism to be 
even approachably seen in America as compared with 
England, yet, on the other hand, great wealth in the 
hands of the comparatively few is more arrogantly 
ostentatious, and is also more vigorously denounced, in 
America, than in the older countries; and it is also a 
fact that in the attainment of great wealth the rights of 
the people are held in less respect in America than in 
most other countries — although a refreshing change in 
this regard is within sight. To put the matter in a nut- 
shell : the multi-millionaire is more unpopular in Amer- 
ica than is the hereditary aristocrat in Europe. Every 
candid student of the times must come to the conclu- 
sion that as the development of the ownership of the 
means of production in the hands of vast combinations 
proceeds, so likewise will there develop a growth of the 
class-conscious feeling among the working people of 
America ; and it is the full recognition of this class con- 
sciousness which is the hope and mainstay of Socialism. 
It may be accepted as a settled thing that the time is 
near at hand when the working people of America will 
demand actual representation in the halls of legislation 
— Municipal, State, and National; — in fact, that time is 
already here. Heretofore, the American working man 
has been content to be included in the general body of 
the electorate and citizenry. It may be said that he 
ought to be still so satisfied — that there ought not to be 
any political class distinctions; and, in an ideal state of 
society, this is undoubtedly true. But, under existing 
conditions, and in the absence of any great overwhelm- 
ing public questions, men will vote as they think their 
own personal, selfish interests are involved. There is no 



INTRODUCTION 29 

such great question dividing political parties these days, 
and the outlook is that the coming questions to be de- 
cided will be chiefly economic. It is therefore inevitable 
that the working people, dependent on wages for a liv- 
ing, will from now on begin to look at public questions 
from more of a class-conscious standpoint than they 
formerly did; and the first expression of this change 
of attitude will be in the struggle for special representa- 
tion in legislative bodies. In this connection it should 
be borne in mind that about the only great special "inter- 
est" which is not represented at Washington is that of 
Labor. 

Socialism Already Here! 

The year 1910 will be historic in the history of Amer- 
ican Socialism: For the first time a large city (Mil- 
waukee) elected a Socialist Mayor and government, 
and the first Socialist Representative to Congress (Vic- 
tor Berger, of the same city) was elected. And in 191 1 
Socialism won some notable triumphs in local elections. 

Let not the American people deceive themselves. Let 
them take warning from the experience of the British 
people, who complacently (and characteristically) ig- 
nored the existence and growth of Socialism until the 
elections of 1906 startled them; and then they were 
amazed to discover what a giant Socialism was, and 
how it was entrenched in the very citadel of the British 
Empire — in the Mother of Parliaments. 

Socialism — the real article, Modern, Scientific, Revo- 
lutionary Socialism — has obtained a foothold in Amer- 
ica; it is bound to grow, and probably to grow enor- 
mously, within the not distant future. So far, organized 
Labor has been the rock against which Revolutionary 



30 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Socialism has beaten in vain in its efforts to become an 
effective political force in America. But that impedi- 
ment shows signs of yielding — as it has yielded in Eng- 
land. Indeed, in 1910, and still more so in 191 1, organ- 
ized Labor and Socialism "pooled their issues" on many 
questions, and there is now an increasing tendency 
toward a practical alliance as to "immediate demands," 
if not an actual acceptance of the theory of Collectivism 
on the part of Trade Unionism. It is significant that 
avowed Socialists — sometimes of the extreme Revolu- 
tionary type — are often now found at the head of Labor 
organizations, and in their extravagances of expression 
it is often difficult to determine in which capacity they 
speak. Notwithstanding that the Socialists have a 
wordy war with the old-line Trade Unionists at each 
annual Convention of the American Federation of La- 
bor, and notwithstanding that there is much personal 
bitterness between the Socialists and the President of 
the Federation (Samuel Gompers), yet there is an un- 
mistakable drift toward "getting together" on the part 
of the rival elements, the opposition being largely one 
of tactics and individual jealousy. 

The late Senator Hanna is often quoted as saying that 
the coming conflict in America will be between the 
forces of Socialism and anti-Socialism; and 1912 was 
named by him as the date of the beginning of the Titanic 
struggle. 

Robert Owen, the Father of Modern Socialism. 

The foundation idea of Modern Socialism was chiefly 
humanitarian: — the expression of the philanthropic love 
for his fellow-beings by Robert Owen, who was born at 
Newton, Montgomeryshire, North Wales, May 14, 1771. 



INTRODUCTION 31 

His name is intimately related to America, not only on 
his own account, but on account of his distinguished son, 
Robert Dale Owen. 

Robert Owen is often styled "the father of Modern 
Socialism/' Karl Marx is generally so honored — and 
he undoubtedly is its greatest prophet; but the truth is 
that Marx only gave scientific expression and elabora- 
tion to principles laid down by Owen a year before 
Marx was born; and some of the distinctive doctrines 
of Marxian Socialism had been enunciated long before 
then, by English economists, principally. In a practical 
sense — and apart from Owen's Utopianism and his other 
wild schemes — Owen is entitled to the distinction of 
being the first of Modern Socialists; the birthplace of 
the movement was London, and the year was 181 7. 
Owen appeared that year before a committee of the 
House of Commons, and made a report on the Poor 
Laws, which at that time were a disgrace to England. 
In that report Owen claimed that the permanent cause 
of distress was in the competition of human labor with 
machinery, and that the only effectual remedy was in 
the united action of working men and the subordination 
of machinery. Owen was not in favor of abandoning 
machinery, but he believed that the manufacturing sys- 
tem could be so arranged as to be an advantage to the 
whole community, instead of being, as he strenuously 
insisted, a curse. One of Owen's most active friends 
in "high places" (and he had many, including Queen 
Victoria's father) was Lord Shaftesbury, "the working- 
man's friend," who was, however, an anti-Socialist. 
Owen's original schemes for the cure of pauperism were 
favored by such conservative organs of public opinion 
as the London Times and the Morning Post. After 



32 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

returning from America (where he had been in the inter- 
est of a communal association, the "Harmonists"), he 
devoted himself to carrying on a propaganda for Social- 
ism and Secularism, with lax ideas of marriage. Just 
when Owen was at the apex of his popularity, and when 
some of his ideas seemed to be most promising in out- 
look, he declared, at a meeting in London, his hostility 
to all forms of received religion. From that time Social- 
ism became identified with infidelity, and was suspected 
and discredited. Later in life Owen became a firm 
Spiritualist. 

While Owen's fame as a Socialist is mainly in con- 
nection with his schemes of communal co-operative asso- 
ciations, both in America and England (now known as 
"Utopian Socialism"), yet, as a matter of fact, he was 
the first reformer to understand — although not in its 
entire conception — the philosophic- and economic basis 
of Modern Scientific Socialism. Brougham Villiers says 
(The Social Movement in England) that up to the com- 
mencement of the Victorian era, Owen was probably 
"the most modern Socialist in the world." 

It is a remarkable fact that the beginning of Modern 
Socialism did not arise from the agitation or action of 
organized Labor, nor of an individual proletarian, but 
sprang from the philanthropic action of a middle-class 
capitalist, a member of the much-disliked bourgeoisie — 
for that is what Robert Owen was. In September, 1833, 
Owen addressed a convention of the Builders' Union, 
at Manchester, England, and it was on this occasion 
that he declared that "labor is the source of all wealth" 
— thus anticipating Marx, or at any rate a doctrine held 
by most Marxists. 

There can be no doubt that the ever-present weight 



INTRODUCTION 33 

on his mind of the great cause to which he had devoted 
his life affected his judgment in his later years; and he 
became erratic and extravagant in his ideas. Eight 
years before he died he made the wild declaration that 
the world was "a great lunatic asylum !" Yet, there are 
but few men in the history of efforts to benefit the 
human race and to restrain "man's inhumanity to man," 
whose memory deserves greater honor than Robert 
Owen, the "father of Modern Socialism." The most 
convinced of anti-Socialists can join in that tribute. 



CHAPTER II 
WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Origin of the word "Socialism." 

There has been much discussion as to the origin of 
the word "Socialism;" but there is now, however, a 
general agreement that it was first used in the Poor 
Man's Guardian (England) in 1833, and that it became 
for the first time current in England in 1835, during 
the Robert Owen agitation. Shortly afterwards, a 
French critic of the theory, Reybaud, introduced the 
word on the Continent. Subsequently, another French 
economist, Pierre Leroux, author of a work expounding 
a system called "Humanitarianism," claimed to have 
invented the term in contradistinction to "Individual- 
ism ;" and Leroux defined Socialism as a "political 
organization in which the individual is sacrificed to 
society." It is not unlikely that the term originated 
about the same time in more than one place. 

Definitions. 

Experts in economic terminology indulge in hair^ 
splitting differences in defining Socialism. Prof. Robert 
Flint, of the University of Edinburgh — probably the 
keenest of all scholarly British critics — takes the posi- 
tion that there is not any satisfactory definition of So- 
cialism, for the reason that there are so many varieties 

34 



WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 35 

and so many different points of view from which it is 
looked at. It would be unreasonable, he says, to ask 
for any definition which would be satisfactory to both 
Socialists and their opponents. Prof. Flint's own defini- 
tion is : "Any theory of social organization which sac- 
rifices the legitimate liberties of individuals to the will 
or interests of the community." E. Belfort Bax, the 
literary leader of British Marxism, comes to much the 
same conclusion that Prof. Flint does, he declaring in 
an article in The Open Review (London) July, 1909, 
that "A world-historic movement like Socialism is too 
big a thing to be fitted into the four corners of a one- 
sentence formula." 

When Pierre Joseph Proudhon, the father of "Philo- 
sophic Anarchism," was before a magistrate on exam- 
ination after the French Revolution of 1848, he was 
asked "What is Socialism?" His answer was, "Every 
aspiration toward the amelioration of society." "In 
that case," remarked the magistrate, "we are all Social- 
ists." "That is precisely what I think," responded 
Proudhon. This reminds one of the declaration once 
made by the English statesman, Sir William Harcourt : 
"We are all Socialists now !" 

Not only popularly, but also among students and 
economists, the term "Socialism" is now meant to apply 
specifically to Modern, Scientific, Marxian Socialism, 
including its varying interpretations. There are several 
kinds not now included, particularly Utopian Socialism, 
such as is presented in the form of romances by Plato 
in his Republic, More in his Utopia, and Bellamy in 
Looking Backward; and in such actual Utopian com- 
munistic experiments as those made by the Owenites, 
the Harmonites, the Shakers, the Oneida Community, 



36 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

the Zoarites, etc., — all of which must be considered as 
failures not only from the Socialist view, but from the 
standpoint of plain, practical, every-day life. Neither 
does the term, as now used by informed people, apply 
to Bismarck's scheme of paternal "State Socialism/' 
which, as a system, is repudiated as such, by the organ- 
ized Socialists of Germany, although they practically 
acquiesce in it as "a means to an end" — that end being 
Collectivism. And yet, State Socialism is not only 
accepted by English Socialists, but most of their activi- 
ties are in the direction of forcing the Government of 
the day, or the Councils of Municipalities, to grant 
instalments of State or Municipal Socialism, as the case 
may be. In 1896 the English Fabian Society issued a 
statement for the information of their Continental com- 
rades, in which it was explained that the Socialism they 
advocated was "State Socialism exclusively." This 
opens up a wide field of controversy among Socialists; 
but briefly, the explanation of this apparent difference 
is that in a democratic country like England the pro- 
letarian objections to State Socialism which exist in a 
bureaucratic country like Germany, are not considered 
to be applicable. As a matter of fact, moreover, the 
practical Opportunism of British Socialism (sometimes 
called "Constructive Socialism") is now becoming the 
dominant school throughout the world. 

It is said that Karl Marx, the "father" of so-called 
"Scientific" Socialism, never gave a concrete definition 
of his theory, except the following (from his preface 
to the second edition of his great elaboration Capital) 
be considered as one : "With me the ideal is nothing 
else than the material world reflected by the human 
mind and translated into forms of thought." 



WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 37 

There has never been framed any better brief defini- 
tion of Modern Socialism in its economic aspect than 
that by one of its first expounders as well as critics — 
Dr. A. Shaffle, the eminent Austrian economist, in The 
Quintessence of Socialism: — "The Alpha and Omega of 
Socialism is the transformation of private and compet- 
ing capitals into a united collective capital. " 

Paul Lafargue, who was a son-in-law of Marx, and 
one of the founders of Marxian Socialism in France, 
defines the theory as "a fatal economic evolution which 
will establish collective ownership in the hands of organ- 
izations of workers, in place of the individual owner- 
ship of capital." 

John Stuart Mill, in the Fortnightly Review, April, 
1879, says: 

What is characteristic of Socialism is the joint ownership 
by all members of the community of the instruments and 
means of production, which carries with it the consequence 
that the division of all the produce among the body of the 
owners must be a public act performed according to rules 
laid down by the community. 

The Rev. Dr. Bliss (who is editor of the Encyclope- 
dia of Social Reform, and is himself a Christian Social- 
ist), after quoting a number of definitions, sums them 
up thus : — "Socialism may be said to be the collective 
ownership of the means of production by the community 
democratically organized and their operation co-opera- 
tively for the equitable good of all." 

The Socialist organizations of America, Germany, 
and Great Britain define their basic principles in terms 
which, while differing in expression, are practically to 
the same effect. It should be added that land and such 



38 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

natural products as coal, ore, etc., are included among 
"means of production," by Socialists of all countries. 

The definitions given above, it will be observed, refer 
only to the industrial or economic side of Socialism. 
The latter-day Constructive Socialists claim that their 
theory has only an economic side; but nearly all the 
great shining lights who profess orthodoxy insist that 
Socialism means far more than a mere change of capi- 
tal from private to public ownership. They argue that 
it is a condition, not a creed, and that that condition will 
affect all the relations of life : social, family, religious, 
artistic, etc., as well as industrial and political. It is 
here that the moral argument for and against Socialism 
forces itself to the front; and it is this fact, involving 
as it does such tremendously different conceptions of 
the system, which makes it practically impossible to 
frame any formula or brief definition of Socialism which 
will be adequately comprehensive as well as discriminat- 
ingly exact. Probably there is a consensus of judgment 
that the greatest living Socialist is Ferd August Bebel, 
one of the founders of the German Social Democratic 
Party, and the leader of that party in the Reichstag. 
He gives this definition in Die Frau mid der Sozialis- 
mus: — "Socialism is Science applied with clear con- 
sciousness and full knowledge to every sphere of human 
activity.'' 

There is another pronouncement of Bebel's which is 
one of the most-often quoted of any ever made by an 
acknowledged leader of International Socialism: — "We 
aim in the domain of Politics at Republicanism; in the 
domain of Economics at Socialism, in the domain of 
what is to-day called Religion at Atheism." 



WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 39 

This phase of the subject is treated at some length 
in the chapter devoted to Marxian Socialism. 

What is "Orthodox" Socialism? 

There is a sharp controversy going on in current 
Socialist literature — which sometimes takes a personal 
turn — as to who are really true believers ; and the charge 
is made by certain Socialists that some of the most 
prominent men identified with the movement are heter- 
odox, and in some cases are really base pretenders. For 
some time there has been waging a polemic between the 
English Fabians and the strict Marxians. G. Bernard 
Shaw, the eminent playwright, and almost as eminent as 
a Socialist, has a preface to the last edition (1908) of 
Fabian Essays, in which he is very sarcastic in his ref- 
erences to the "many little societies locally known as 
'the Socialists/ " — meaning the self-styled "scientific" 
followers of Karl Marx. With that playful humor 
which is his own he derides their worship of the "Mas- 
ter," "of whose works they are for the most part igno- 
rant and of whose views they are intellectually incapa- 
ble." According to Bernard Shaw, the particular school 
of which he is such a distinguished leader has swept the 
field during recent years. Says he : "Since 1889 the 
Socialist movement has been completely transformed 
throughout Europe; and the result of the transforma- 
tion may fairly be described as Fabian Socialism." On 
the other hand, John Spargo — who speaks from the 
standpoint of both an English and an American Social- 
ist — declares in the International Socialist Review (Chi- 
cago), of May, 1909, that "there are few American So- 
cialists who will take their Socialism from the Fabian 



40 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Essays" And yet, probably next to Blatchford's Merrie 
England there is no exposition of Socialism which has 
had such a world-wide circulation and popular influ- 
ence as the Fabian Essays! It will hardly be disputed 
that the most philosophical and learned of all living 
British Socialist writers is E. Belfort Bax, the literary 
partner of the artist-poet, William Morris, the latter of 
whom is claimed by competent authority to be "the 
greatest personality that has ever been connected with 
Socialism in England, or perhaps in the modern world. ,, 
(Brougham Villiers, The Socialist Movement in Eng- 
land.) In an essay defining what Socialism is and what 
it is not, Bax scornfully calls the Fabians "practical 
prigs!'' And in another essay {Christianity and Social- 
ism) he declares that the Fabians are "persons calling 
themselves Socialists . . . who are either unclear 
on the whole question or who are at variance with the 
fundamental article of Socialist doctrine on other 
points." In still another essay {Faddist Fanaticism), 
after describing a number of different so-called Social- 
ists, Bax wearily exclaims, "O Socialism, Socialism, 
what queer fish they would have us assimilate in thy 
name !" He adjures his Marxian Social Democratic 
comrades to "remember that Socialist principle is defi- 
nite and not to be played fast and loose with by Social- 
ists." A true Socialist, he insists, must, if the occasion 
calls for it, even be "the enemy of his country, and the 
friend of his country's enemies !" Yet even Bax does 
not wholly accept the doctrines of Marx. No foreign 
Socialist author is better known — and, indeed, respected 
— in America than Sidney Webb, who specially wrote 
Socialism in England at the request of the American 
Economic Association, the work being published by the 



WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 41 

Johns Hopkins University. But Bax refuses to recog- 
nize Webb as a Socialist; and referring to that High 
Priest of Fabianism, Bax inquires, with disgust, 
"Now, are we ... to be condemned to hug such 
a man as this to our bosom as a 'comrade' because, for- 
sooth, he can in a certain sense repeat that he favors 
the 'socialization of the means, etc. ?' " In an article 
in the Fortnightly Rezriew (London) of August, 1908, 
Bax repeats, word for word, the definition given by 
himself and William Morris in their joint work Social- 
ism, Its Growth and Outcome, and adds : "This defini- 
tion clearly shuts out mere Socialistic legislation, such 
as may obtain to-day within the framework, economic 
and political, of present Capitalist society, from the 
right to be described as Socialism, as is often done by 
'practical politicians/ ' ; The contention of Bax, as a 
consistent Scientific Socialist, is that no legislation or 
administration can be called Socialist unless its "definite 
and conscious aim" is Socialism. In the same month 
that the rigid, inflexible Bax defined his kind of Social- 
ism in the Fortnightly Review, another — and just as 
distinguished — Socialist was expounding his brand of 
the faith in the Contemporary Review — H. G. Wells, 
the author of New Worlds for Old, and The Future in 
America, and other well-known works. Wells "dis- 
avows" Christian Socialism, which he calls the "Social- 
ism of Condescension," and he emphatically repudiates 
Marxism, which he styles "the Socialism of Revolt." 
Mr. Wells resigned from the Fabian Society (too much 
Bernard Shaw!), and he now declares that he is more 
opposed to the "fugitive Socialism" of the Fabians than 
he is to any other kind; and he accuses the Fabian 
"specialist" of seeking to bring about Socialism by 



42 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

"tricks and misrepresentations, by benevolent scoun- 
drelism, in fact." How these Socialists love one an- 
other ! 

The question as to what constitutes orthodoxy in 
Socialism has recently become an acute one in regard 
to the status of the British Labor-Socialist allied organ- 
izations, and especially as to the views held by Keir 
Hardy, M. P., the founder of the Independent Labor 
Party, the most active of all the British Socialist socie- 
ties in the field of politics. This is not simply a British 
question, as it has been brought over to America; and 
it directly affects the relations of the American Feder- 
ation of Labor and other Trade Union bodies in this 
country to organized Socialism, both native and inter- 
national. 

Not Anarchism, nor Communism. 

In a popular sense, Socialism is often confused with 
Anarchism and Communism; but theoretically — and in- 
deed, practically — there is a great difference. Anarch- 
ism means the abolition of government and the sover- 
eignty of the individual, which is the antithesis of 
Socialism. According to Anarchism, only individuals 
have rights; and the argument is, that as no individual 
has the right to coerce or govern another without his 
consent, neither has the State that right, the State being 
only an aggregation of individuals. So, according to 
this Anarchistic theory, no form of government is jus- 
tifiable unless there is absolutely universal consent. The 
right of a majority to govern or coerce a minority is 
denied, even though that minority consists only of one 
individual. It is a mistake to suppose that Anarchists 
want to turn private property over to the State. But 



WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 43 

they believe in voluntary association and in communal 
property — that is, that those who contribute their labor 
to the production of necessities should receive their 
share of the products, and consume them as they please. 
There are two schools of Anarchists : ( i ) Individual 
or Philosophic Anarchists, who do not, as a matter of 
policy, believe in the use of force to attain their ends; 
(2) Anarchist-Communists, who believe in overthrow- 
ing government by force. It is to the latter school that 
the bomb-throwers belong. Most of the Modern Social- 
ists — from Marx down to the present day — not only 
disclaim all association and sympathy with Anarchism, 
but insist that their doctrine is absolutely opposed to it, 
as Socialism implies the supremacy of organized society 
over the individual, while Anarchism means the very 
opposite. And, it should be stated as a matter of jus- 
tice, that in most constitutional countries the leaders of 
the two forces have generally opposed each other in 
seeking to obtain control of the proletarian movement. 
It is equally true, however, that in autocratic countries 
like Russia, and in non-democratic countries like Italy 
and Spain, Socialism and Anarchism are practically 
synonymous terms — or have been until quite a recent 
period. As a matter of argument, also, it is a legiti- 
mate contention that the result of Socialism would prob- 
ably be — from a complete breakdown in itself, in prac- 
tical working — either Anarchism or Absolutism. 

In a theoretical sense there is also a difference be- 
tween Socialism and Communism. Most Socialists now 
deny that they are Communists, although it is a curious 
fact that the first authentic international statement of 
Modern Socialism — the famous a call-to-arms" to the 
proletarians of the world, issued jointly by Marx and 



44 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Engels in 1848 — was called "The Communist Mani- 
festo." And as late as 1888, Engels, in referring with 
pride to this title, declared that "we have, ever since, 
been far from repudiating it." An interesting question 
not unnaturally suggests itself from this confession: — 
Were not Marx and Engels really Communists, rather 
than Socialists, according to the present prevailing 
meaning of the term? And furthermore: — Are not 
most of their followers Communists at heart, notwith- 
standing their insistence upon a difference of definition ? 
Intellectual Socialists indignantly deny the justice of 
classing them with the Communists or "Communards" 
of Paris, whose revolution, by the way, they claim, was 
owing to purely political and not economic causes. Yet, 
impartial students cannot be blamed for taking note of 
the fact that even at the present time Socialists, both 
individually and collectively, applaud the Communists 
of Paris, as they also do the Anarchists of Chicago. 
Nevertheless, there is a definite difference between the 
philosophy of Communism and that of Socialism, 
although they both contemplate the abolition of the 
present competitive, wage-earning system, and the sub- 
stitution therefor of associated production and distribu- 
tion. But there is this difference : 

Communism, in the strict sense, means that all goods 
and property should belong to the community in com- 
mon, this joint possession to include "consumption" 
goods (such as food, clothing, articles of personal use, 
etc.), as well as "production" goods (such as manufac- 
turing plants, railways, mines, ships, raw materials, 
etc.) ; while Socialism — as now generally defined — con- 
templates the collective ownership of all means of "pro- 
duction and distribution" only, leaving to the individual 



WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 45 

such "consumption" goods as he might earn or which 
might be allocated to him. 

Division of Labor's Products. 

Some authorities make this further difference: — Un- 
der Communism there is an equal division of products, 
or an allowance according to "needs;" while compensa- 
tion or distribution of products under Socialism is 
according to "deeds" — that is, every man will receive 
the product-value of his own labor. 

But there is a pronounced disagreement among even 
accepted Socialist authorities in regard to the last-men- 
tioned point. There are, indeed, many different plans 
proposed, some utterly inconsistent with others, in 
regard to the compensation of labor : both as to the 
basis of compensation and how it should be adminis- 
tered, and also as to how the necessaries of life, as well 
as luxuries, should be supplied to individual members 
of the community. Some of the greatest thinkers among 
the Socialists — probably a majority — concede that to 
conserve the principle of equality (which is, in theory, 
the very soul of Socialism), and to prevent the re-estab- 
lishment of "classes," it will ultimately be absolutely 
necessary to issue supplies "according to need" if not 
on an equality. Only a few specimen authorities need 
be quoted: 

Robert Blatchford gives this description in Merrie 
England: 

Under Ideal Socialism there would be no money at all, and 
no wages .... Every citizen would take what he or 
she desired from the common stock. Food, clothing, fuel, 
transit, amusements, and all other things, would be absolutely 
free. 



46 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Spargo, in Socialism, after laying it down that "equal- 
ity of remuneration is not an essential condition of the 
Socialist regime/' goes on to say : "It may be freely 
admitted, however, that the ideal to be aimed at ulti- 
mately must be approximate equality of income. Other- 
wise, class formations must take place and the old prob- 
lems incidental to economic inequality reappear." 

In their famous "Gotha Program" of 1875, the Social- 
ist Workingmen's Party of Germany (the present So- 
cial Democracy) declared : "As the obligation to labor 
is universal, all have an equal right to such product [of 
work], each one according to his reasonable needs." 

The brilliant Mrs. Annie Besant is now chiefly known 
by reason of her position as the leading Theosophist 
in the world; but the time w r as when she was almost 
as w r ell-known as a Socialist — and so far as known she 
is still a Socialist. In her contribution to the Fabian 
Essays she strongly insisted that inequality of division 
would be "odious," and that the "Communal Council" 
would be driven "into the right path — equal remunera- 
tion of all workers." 

The very highest authority, Marx himself, undoubt- 
edly held that supplies would be furnished "according 
to need," when the system of Collectivism became ideal. 
He has enunciated two methods of distribution of the 
products of co-operative labor, according to the period 
or phase of Socialism. In the Neue Zeit (9th year, 1. 
pp. 566, 567), Marx laid this down as the program in 
the first period of Communist society : 

In accordance with this principle each producer [i. e., 
laborer, in contradistinction to capitalists who do not pro- 
duce] will receive — after deduction has been made for the 
needs of the society — exactly what he has contributed to it. 



WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 47 

His contribution is his individual share of labor. The social 
working day consists of the total of the individual hours of 
labor; the individual labor time of each producer is the 
part of the social working day furnished by him; it con- 
stitutes his share. The society will give him a certificate 
that he has furnished a certain quantity of work — after de- 
ducting his work for the common fund — and by showing his 
certificate he will draw from the society's stores an amount 
of provisions equivalent in value to his work. The amount 
of work given to the society in one shape is received again 
in another. 

[It will be observed that Marx speaks of the Socialist 
Commonwealth or State as "the society."] 

In Capital (vol. I, p. 567, 4th German ed.) Marx 
explains that during this first period there will not be 
perfect equality, "but different individual talents and 
capacities will be acknowledged as privileges of nature. 
. . . In substance as well as in their nature rights 
will be unequal, . . . but these inconveniences are 
unavoidable during this first period of communist 
society which, after long travailing, is just then issuing 
forth from the womb of capitalist society." 

But, in the second period of Communism, the right 
of each laborer to receive supplies "according to need" 
will be recognized. For, says Marx {Capital, vol. 1, p. 

567): 

In a higher phase of communist society, after the slavish 
subordination of the individual under the divisions of labor, 
and consequently the opposition between mental and bodily 
work has disappeared; after labor has ceased to be merely 
the means of sustaining life, but has become an urgent de- 
sire; after the individual has become more perfect in every 
respect, increasing thereby also the productive forces and 
giving full play to the fountains of co-operative wealth — then 
only the narrow ordinary barriers of right and justice can be 



48 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

demolished, and society may inscribe upon its banner : Each 
one according to his abilities, to each one according to his 
needs. 

Keir Hardy, M. P., the apostle of the very latest 
eclectic conglomeration of differing Socialist schools, 
frankly confesses in his work, From Serfdom to Social- 
ism, that Communism is "the final goal of Socialism. " 

There can be no doubt on the part of those familiar 
with current thought and political activity in the move- 
ment, that the Scotch Socialist, J. Haldane Smith, is 
perfectly correct when he declares in his protesting 
Socialism or Communism? that "a conscious movement 
towards Communism is apparent" in the ranks of Brit- 
ish Socialism. And this is. true of the world-wide move- 
ment, notwithstanding that Socialists protest that they 
are not Communists. 



CHAPTER III 
IN ANCIENT DAYS 

Aboriginal Communism. 

Socialism is as old as history, in the sense that ever 
since recorded time there have been aspirations and 
struggles to attain the Ideal State. Prof. LeRossignol 
(University of Denver) observes in Orthodox Social- 
ism that "the inequality of man is the most striking 
fact in human history." The communal holding of 
property can be traced back to the beginning of his- 
tory ; but, so, also, can the existence of private property. 
The claim of Socialists that the establishment of Col- 
lectivism would only be a reversion to original condi- 
tions is supported by some eminent authors, but is ques- 
tioned and indeed denied by others. Principally from 
the inborn desire for other men's possessions, tribes 
went to war, captives were made slaves, and were looked 
upon as chattels; and one of the Marxian assumptions 
is that the origin of capital was the profit derived from 
slave labor. During the evolution of primitive society, 
there was common possession of such things as boats 
and tents and articles of food, as well as of flocks and 
herds. When savagery gave place to barbarism, and 
when the roaming, hunting tribe developed into a pas- 
toral and later on into an agricultural community, there 
was common possession — or, rather, common occupa- 

49 



So WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

tion and use — of land. In time, the tribes confederated 
into nations; and there was an accompanying change 
involving one of the most important facts in the whole 
sociological history of man. During the era of savagery 
and in the early period of barbarism, sexual matters had 
concerned the tribe rather than the individual members. 
But, gradually, with the organization of society, the 
relationship between man and woman became individ- 
ually exclusive and mutual. This change marks the 
beginning of a modification in the principle of the com- 
mon ownership of goods ; and it also marks the founda- 
tion of family life. 

The Family and Private Property. 

It is not within the province of this work to discuss 
the conflicting theories as to the origin of the family as 
an institution; but there can be no denial of the state- 
ment that family life is intimately related to the con- 
ception of private property, although there is great dif- 
ference among scholars as to whether the idea of mar- 
riage and the family had most to do with the concep- 
tion of private property, or vice versa. But it is evi- 
dent that this idea and conception acted and re-acted 
upon each other : — that is, that as marriage became rec- 
ognized as the normal relationship between man and 
woman, and as the family life developed, so there grew 
up a desire on the part of man for private property, for 
exclusive use and enjoyment; and, on the other hand, as 
a man's private property accumulated, so likewise there 
manifested itself a desire for a wife and for children 
to share his possessions. Some coldly logical Socialists 
accept it as inevitable that pure and consistent Collectiv- 
ism must result in a dissolution of the present marriage 



IN ANCIENT DAYS 51 

relation and a break-up of the existing family institu- 
tion; and there are those who, with brutal frankness, 
confess that the greatest obstacles to the establishment 
of their system are the marriage and family ties as now 
established — and that until they are abolished it is im- 
possible for genuine, thorough Socialism to be estab- 
lished. 

Such eminent authorities as Emile de Laveleye, Pro- 
fessor of Political Economy at Liege (born 1822, died 
1892), and Sir Henry Maine, an English jurist and 
economist (born 1822, died 1888), maintained that the 
separate ownership of land and chattels is of modern 
growth, and that originally ownership was in com- 
munities of kinsmen. The theories of Maine as to 
the communal "villages" of India are to this day confi- 
dently pointed to as demonstrating the practicability 
of Socialism so far as the land is concerned. But B. H. 
Baden-Powell, M. A. (Oxford), is a later authority 
than Sir Henry Maine, and he shows that the latter 
confounded communal ownership with a system of cul- 
tivation for the common support of local groups. Fus- 
tel de Coulanges, of Paris (born 1830, died 1889), left 
an uncompleted work which is considered a masterly 
refutation of Laveleye's communistic theories. He 
argued that ancient property in land was on the seig- 
neurial rather than the communal tenure. "National 
communism," he says, "has been confused with the com- 
mon ownership of the family; tenure in common has 
been confused with ownership in common; agrarian 
communism with village commons." 

Holy Writ itself testifies not only as to the establish- 
ment or recognition of private property in land, but also 
as to its inheritance. Jehovah instructed Moses to 



52 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

divide the newly-possessed Land of Canaan for an 
Inheritance among his families, according to their size. 
The portion assigned to each man became his inaliena- 
ble property, and descended in perpetuity to his heirs; 
and by the Law of Jubilee the land was restored, free 
♦of encumbrance, to the heirs of its original holder, every 
lialf-century. 

It has been contended that the old Roman constitu- 
tion provided for equality of property in land. But 
Prof. George Ferguson, in his article on "Agrarian 
Laws" in the Encyclopedia Britannica, declares that this 
belief, so long held, is altogether erroneous, and he con- 
firms the conclusion of Prof. Niebuhr, the great Dan- 
ish scholar, "that the agrarian laws of the Romans were 
in no case intended to interfere with or afifect private 
property in land, but related exclusively to the public 
domain." 

Authorities could be multiplied as showing the anti- 
quity of the principle of private ownership, not only in 
land, but in every class of goods — immovable as well 
as portable, and that the claim of Socialists that private 
property is only a modern institution is absolutely un- 
tenable. 

In 1904 the University of Chicago Press published a 
wonderfully interesting book, The Code of Hammurabi, 
King of Babylon, of date about 2250 B. C. The book 
gives facsimiles of the tablets bearing the Code, in auto- 
graphed text, and in translations by Prof. Robert Fran- 
cis Harper. The Code is a compilation of decrees of 
Hammurabi, providing for punishment not only for 
offenses against the person, but for stealing private 
property, and for trespassing on private land, and for 
injuries to private fields, gardens, and houses, etc. One 



IN ANCIENT DAYS 53 

law reads : "A woman, merchant, property-holder, may 
sell field, garden, or house. The purchaser shall con- 
duct the business of the field, garden, or house which 
he has purchased/' There are laws as to the renting of 
fields for cultivation; also as to sub-renting; and there 
are regulations as to loans in which the anticipated 
crops are pledged as security. Punishment is provided 
for in cases of shepherds pasturing flocks on fields with- 
out the consent of the owners; but a public "common" 
is also mentioned by name. There are also laws gov- 
erning the charge of interest on loans of money; fam- 
ily inheritances are provided for; and wages are named 
for certain classes of work. 

The presentation of this phase of the subject can be 
closed with two quotations, one from a Socialist author- 
ity and the other from an anti-Socialist. The first, the 
Encyclopedia of Social Reform, says, after giving the 
views of opposing writers : "Some argue that the cor- 
rect balance of truth is that property was not originally 
held either by individuals or communally, but by bodies 
of men under some 'strong man' — despot, tyrant, or at 
best patriarch. This would be far from communism, 
but perhaps equally far from individual ownership. " 
The second authority is John Gibbons, LL.D. (Chi- 
cago), in Tenure and. Toil: "The writers of ancient 
poetry and ancient history serve alike to confirm the 
assertion that among the Greeks, Romans, Phoenicians, 
Carthaginians, and Egyptians the right of private own- 
ership in property existed from the earliest period of 
which we have any definite data. In other words, wher- 
ever we find a commercial people, we find the right of 
individual ownership in property recognized." 



54 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Examples of Ancient Socialism. 

One of the standard and strongest arguments against 
Socialism as 'now understood is that it is purely theo- 
retical — that the system has never been tried. The most 
intellectual and authoritative advocates frankly concede 
that this objection is well taken, if the modern concep- 
tion of Socialism be accepted; but they claim that there 
are examples of the Collectivist idea or of communal 
possession of property, dating from the most ancient 
times. 

Socialist literature is full of references to Lycurgus, 
"the lawgiver of Sparta," and to his alleged division of 
land. The tradition is that Lycurgus brought over from 
Crete the institutions of the Dorians, and redivided 
property when he established a new civil constitution. 
It is said that he parceled out Laconia into 39,000 equal 
lots, 9,000 lots being assigned to Spartan citizens. In 
a very remarkable work by C. Osborne Ward (a gov- 
ernment official at Washington, D. C), The Ancient 
Lowly y it is claimed that under a system established by 
Lycurgus, the Spartans practiced communal ownership 
from 825 to 371 B. C. Mr. Ward says that there was 
not only common property, common education, and com- 
mon eating — but that commerce was interdicted, and 
that stealing was authorized! 

But scholarly Socialists do not lay much stress upon 
the story of Lycurgus and his division of land. They 
recognize that it is but a tradition at the best, and even 
if true bears but little relation to the modern idea of 
Socialism, and cannot, therefore, be cited as a demon- 
stration of its practicability. 



IN ANCIENT DAYS 55 

Athenian Socialism. 

Of the instances of ancient Socialism, so-called, of 
more or less authenticity, none is pointed to so confi- 
dently and with so much pride, as the case of classic 
Athens. But it should be kept in mind that the Social- 
ism of Athens was only for the free citizens: — that it 
did not benefit the slaves, although historians agree that 
the Athenians treated their slaves better than the Ro- 
mans did. There are a number of estimates of the num- 
ber of slaves in proportion to the free citizens in 
Athens ; it is generally put down as three slaves to one 
free man. It is claimed that Socialism was virtually 
tried in Athens, under Pericles, the greatest of all Gre- 
cian statesmen, who flourished in the fifth century 
before Christ. Dr. Bliss quotes authorities in his ency- 
clopedia declaring that this was the period of Greece's 
greatest glory, and that it produced men of unequalled 
ability— and this the editor of the Encyclopedia of 
Social Reform attributes to Socialism. In view of the 
current discussion in regard to the Communism of 
Modern Socialism, and especially as to rewards of labor 
under the Collective Commonwealth, it is interesting 
a note that Dr. Bliss, in an article in The Outlook (New 
York), says that the Socialism of classic Athens prac- 
tically asked from each citizen labor according to his 
ability, and of the product gave to each according to 
his need; and this is the pure Marxian conception 
of ideal Socialism. Two institutions in the main accom- 
plished this: one was called the "liturgies/' and took 
from the rich for the benefit of the poor ; and the other 
was called the "dicasticon," which was payment in 
money, daily, for public service (assumedly), given to 
any citizen who wanted it, practically, and in an amount 



56 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

sufficient to enable him to live upon it in respectability 
and comfort. It was the latter institution, Dr. Bliss 
says, which, more than anything else, made Athens a 
Socialist State. There were a great many law courts 
in Athens, and citizens were paid daily amounts for per- 
forming jury service; and they also received pay for 
attending the popular assemblies, and for witnessing the 
elaborate religious ceremonies and rites, which were 
conducted and maintained by the State. The temples, 
baths, gymnasia, theatres, markets, etc., were built and 
managed by the State. The arts were cared for by the 
State, and the wonderful and incomparable Parthenon 
and Acropolis were the creation of State artists. Gold 
and silver mines, and the slaves who worked them, were 
owned by the State ; and thus were supplied the official 
revenues, instead of by taxation. Commerce and trade 
were usually left to slaves, while the free-born citizens 
(Socialists!) "reaped the usufruct," and devoted them- 
selves to "higher things." Notwithstanding the brilliant 
civilization of Athens, she fell — and deservedly so. Dr. 
Bliss admits that Socialist ( !) Athens was immoral and 
corrupt, and that its family life was impure. The con- 
dition of Athens under so-called Socialism was even 
worse than Dr. Bliss admits. J. G. Frazier, in an arti- 
cle in the Encyclopedia Britannica, writes : 

According to Plato, it was a common saying that Pericles, 
by the system of payments which he introduced, had cor- 
rupted the Athenians, rendering them idle, cowardly, talka- 
tive, and avaricious. It was Pericles who introduced the 
payment of jurymen, and as there were 6,000 of them told off 
annually for duty, of whom a great part sat daily, the dis- 
bursement from the treasury was great, while the poor and 
idle were encouraged to live at the public expense. . . . 
It was part of the policy of Pericles at once to educate and 



IN ANCIENT DAYS 57 

delight the people by numerous and splendid festivals, pro- 
cessions, and shows. But the good was mixed with seeds of 
evil, which took root and spread, till, in the days of Demos- 
thenes, the money which should have been spent in fighting 
the enemies of Athens was squandered in spectacles and 
pageants. The spectacular fund or Theorikon has been called 
the cancer of Athens. 

The "Solonic Law." 

American Socialists quote extensively from the work 
by C. Osborne Ward, The Ancient Lowly, which sets 
forth the most remarkable alleged discoveries by the 
author as to the antiquity of Trade Unions and Social- 
ism. Mr. Ward is an avowed Socialist, and his state- 
ments have all the animus of an extreme partisan. The 
evidence which he presents he says he unearthed from 
old manuscripts, tablets, chiselled records, and relics, 
in ancient cities and ruins in Italy and Greece, which he 
affirms were heretofore unknown or had been systemat- 
ically smothered or ignored by other writers. Much 
space is given by Mr. Ward to what is called the 
"Solonic Law." Solon was a very wise man of Greece, 
and lived about 600 years before Christ. He had the 
confidence of his fellow-citizens, and they made him 
"Archon," or Chief Magistrate. The money lenders 
were eating up the substance of the land, and the small 
farms were plentifully sprinkled with "mortgage pil- 
lars;" and Solon's first act as "Archon" was to annul 
all mortgages, by having the pillars thrown down. This 
proceeding was deemed justifiable because the terms 
of the money lenders were unfair and oppressive; but 
there was no redistribution or confiscation of the land. 
Solon's next great reform was the reconstruction of the 
political system on the principle that every citizen was 



58 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

entitled to share in the government of the country. 
Solon is said to be the father of universal suffrage — 
that is, as regards free citizens. But he realized that 
the people were not ready for "pure" democracy; he 
made property the measure of political power, and he 
confined the higher offices of State to the wealthy citi- 
zens. From them he made a Council of Four Hundred ; 
— and the origin of the term "Four Hundred" as ap- 
plied to the wealthy, exclusive "set" of New York, is 
no doubt from this Solonic law. But Mr. Ward goes far 
beyond what the above would indicate as to the char- 
acter of Solon and his historic decrees. He pictures 
Solon — almost to the exclusion of anything else — as 
being the organizer of the proletarians, not only of 
Greece, but of the world as it was then known, first as 
Trade Unionists, and then as members of organizations 
forming parts of an universal scheme of Socialism! 
Mr. Ward claims that the Solonic Law provided for 
a common table, and that the Trade Unions held prop- 
erty in common and followed a communal code. The 
system under Solon appears to have been very much 
"mixed," according to Mr. Ward. The free citizens 
owned private property, but the members of the Trade 
Unions were not citizens, and a large proportion of 
them were slaves. Their right of combination was 
given to them by Solon. While their plan of organiza- 
tion was economic rather than political, when originally 
organized, yet at the time of Christ it was political, and 
they endorsed Christianity. Says this most astounding 
author: "There are reasonable grounds for believing 
that the original founders of Christianity, including the 
Master Himself, were initiates into the secret penetra- 
lia of this vast order!" These Trade Unions, accord- 



IN ANCIENT DAYS 59 

ing to Mr. Ward, represented "pure, scientific Social- 
ism" — and had the movement continued uninterrupt- 
edly, the millenium would long before this have arrived ! 
It is asserted that the Syrians tried to break up this 
wonderful Socialist system, but were not able to do so, 
and the work of destruction was then undertaken by 
the Romans ! And finally Solonic Socialism was killed by 
Diocletian, the Roman Emperor, in the third century 
after Christ. Some Socialists seriously quote this jum- 
ble of tradition and imagination as historic proof of the 
practicability of Socialism! 

In Peru, Mexico and Elsewhere. 

There was an enforced system of Communism among 
the original inhabitants of Peru, the Aztecs, in the days 
when they were lorded over by the Incas. The system 
of government was a pure despotic theocracy. The 
great mass of the Aztecs were serfs, and they were 
compelled to labor. In the hamlets and villages a man 
mounted a tower every evening and announced where 
and how the Aztecs serfs were to work the next day. 
Labor was in common, individual property among the 
Aztecs was abolished, and every detail in daily life 
was prescribed, according to fixed rules, the people 
being mere machines, governed by an immense staff 
of civil and religious officers. It is not to be wondered 
at that the Peruvians fell an easy prey to their Spanish 
invaders. And yet some Socialists say that the Peru- 
vian experiment justifies the claim that Socialism is 
feasible 1 

In Mexico, centuries ago, there was a communism in 
land among the aborigines, the majority of whom were 
serfs, and were transferred with the soil which they 



60 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

| I ■ | 

worked. The peasants and the slaves of the nobles 
were allowed a certain portion of land, which they cul- 
tivated in common, for their subsistence; and the sur- 
plus of what they produced they had to turn over to 
their masters. 

Alfred Stead, in Great Japan, says that there are now 
in existence several Socialist communities within the 
Empire of the East, and that in one of these divisions 
the "single tax" has been in existence for centuries. 
This community levies all taxes on land, but at certain 
periods — of eleven, thirteen, or seventeen years — the 
land is impartially apportioned among the people. Mr. 
Stead gives a detailed account of the system of Social- 
ism which is said to have been in force for centuries — 
and is still in force — in the Prefecture of Okinawa, 
which is comprised of thirty-six islands, their combined 
size being 170 square miles, and their population being 
170,000. In addition to the private allotments of land, 
made as above stated, the community own a large tract 
of common land, on which they plant banana trees ; and 
the trees are carefully preserved so that the fruit can 
be used by all the people in case of a famine. There 
is not a landlord on the whole of the islands. Mr. Stead 
is of the opinion that in all probability Socialism of a 
modified form will soon be introduced by the national 
government of Japan; but he thinks that in that coun- 
try it is likely to develop along lines vastly different 
from those followed elsewhere. 

In many parts of the world there have been "common" 
lands, existing from the earliest dawn of civilization. 
Under the ancient laws of Ireland, tribes had common 
possession of "live" and "dead" chattels, as well as 
land; and Prof. Leslie, of Belfast, in his great work, 



IN ANCIENT DAYS 61 

Primitive Property, says that these ancient laws indicate 
that women were not only held as chattels but were 
held as such in common by clans and "septs" (joint 
families), and by smaller groups of kinsmen. There 
are ancient legal records of the original co-ownership 
and common cultivation of the soil of Denmark and 
Holstein by village communities. In England, groups 
of husbandmen cultivated the ground and fed their 
flocks and herds on a co-operative system which bears 
all the marks of descent from the primitive communal 
usages of the Teutonic race. 

Alone among the countries of the world, Switzerland 
has maintained free political institutions and a system 
of communal possession of land contemporaneously, this 
system antedating feudalism : — the "Allmend," which 
is not extensive, and has hereditary features. "All- 
mend" means "the domain common to all." But the 
system is disintegrating under the influence of modern 
civilization; the communal land is now leased by pub- 
lic auction, and — contrary to ancient principles — 
strangers as well as citizens can now lease the land. 
There is a similar system in some of the mountainous 
districts of France. 

The Russian institution of the "Mir" is frequently 
referred to as an example of the advantages of Col- 
lectivism, but the claim will not bear investigation. All 
land in Russia which is not owned by the Crown or the 
nobility is the common property of the community; 
and the aggregate of the inhabitants of a village pos- 
sessing the land in common is known as a "Mir," which 
is ancient Russian for "commune." In theory, every 
male villager of legal age has an equal share in the 
"Mir." Formerly there was common cultivation in the 



62 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

"Mir," but that custom has long been abandoned, and 
now the common land is divided into small plots and 
is distributed among the villages by lot or otherwise. 
But the institution is very unsatisfactory, especially 
under modern conditions ; and the "Mir" and the exten- 
sive system of "Municipal Socialism" in Russia have 
paralyzed individual initiative and enterprise. The vil- 
lagers do not feel that they have any permanent inter- 
est in any one piece of land, and they therefore only 
cultivate it in "hand-to-mouth" style; they do not ma- 
nure it properly, neither do they provide for rotation 
of crops; and they only make such improvements as 
immediate necessities compel. Not only has the system 
resulted in the impoverishment of the land, but of the 
tenants as well, they being almost universally and hope- 
lessly in debt. 

In ancient Germany the village "Marke" possessed 
features analogous to the Russian "Mir." With the 
exception of the houses and orchards, everything was 
held in common, the land being divided into plots, and 
after being cultivated for a year, was allowed to "lie 
fallow" for a number of years. 

When the Dutch went to Java they found a system 
of collective ownership and cultivation practiced by the 
natives. The Dutch have continued the system with 
modifications, which include the relations of the laborers 
to the State; in the old days the labor was forced, and 
even at the present time its status is very low. 

The apostle of Modern Socialism cannot find any sat- 
isfactory precedent for Collectivism in the ancient exam- 
ples : they were all utterly incompatible with the spirit 



IN ANCIENT DAYS 63 

of modern times; in some instances they were based on 
slavery; and in the most conspicuous case, so-called 
Socialism was the direct cause of national ruin. Social- 
ism has yet to justify its extravagant claims by a single 
successful experiment. 



CHAPTER IV 

LABOR'S ATTITUDE 

Trade Unionism versus Socialism. 

Although there can be no doubt that the majority of 
Socialists are Trade Unionists — except in such coun- 
tries as Russia, where organized Labor is almost un- 
known — it is a notable fact that the. two movements 
represented are often antagonistic. The relation be- 
tween Socialism and Trade Unionism differs in differ- 
ent countries. In non-democratic countries, such as 
Italy and Spain, there is practically no difference, while 
in the most democratic country, the United States, there 
is the most pronounced difference which exists in any 
country. In Germany, Trade Unionists are divided into 
Roman Catholic, Protestant, and purely secular organ- 
izations — the most numerous being the latter. The sec- 
ular bodies are practically all Socialist, while those 
organized on a distinctively Christian basis are anti- 
Socialist. As a rule, Trade Unionism and Socialism 
practically mean the same thing on the Continent 
(except in cases in which the former is organized on a 
religious basis) : there may be two separate bodies, but 
they run in parallel grooves, one body working specif- 
ically on trade lines, while the other devotes itself to the 
political side of the proletarian movement; and on 
occasions both currents of agitation and action will 
coalesce for one mutual purpose. 

6 4 



LABOR'S ATTITUDE 65 

In England and America there has been in the past a 
clearly-marked cleavage between Socialism and Trade 
Unionism; but within recent years there has been a 
closing-up of the gap in England; and there are devel- 
opments in the same direction in the United States. 

British Politics and Trade Unionism. 

There are four well-marked periods of development 
in the history of the British Trade Union movement : 
(1) that of the origin of trade societies, gradually be- 
coming permanent, and composed exclusively of jour- 
neymen who were wage earners; (2) a revolutionary 
period, when the Unions were fighting against the bar- 
barous legislation of Parliament, and were struggling 
to secure the legal right to combine and to make "col- 
lective bargains;" (3) an era of conservative construc- 
tion, and of growth into strong beneficial societies, a 
policy of non-participation in politics being generally 
observed; (4) that of the present time — of the "new" 
Unionism, the Labor organizations abandoning to a 
great extent their past policy of political neutrality, and 
affiliating with societies and movements outside their 
own special sphere, this alliance being for the accom- 
plishment of specific political and economic ends — even 
including the "ultimate aim" of Modern Socialism, the 
communal ownership and control of the means of pro- 
duction and distribution. And it is significant that 
while British Labor-Socialists are keenly "Opportun- 
ist," they are generally to be numbered amongst the 
most extravagant of the Socialist brotherhood as to 
their declared economic objects — to be attained, how- 
ever, by peaceful methods. But there are, it should be 
noted, already symptoms of a revolt or reaction against 



66 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

the "new" Trade Unionism. During the year 1910 
there was a revolt on the part of Conservative and 
other anti-Socialist trade unionists against being com- 
pelled to pay assessments for the election expenses and 
salaries of Labor-Socialist members of Parliament, and 
one of them named Osborne secured from the courts a 
decision which has become famous under his name, lay- 
ing down the principle that as trade union funds are 
partly beneficial in their character they cannot be used 
for political purposes, and that a member cannot be 
expelled from his union for refusing to pay the special 
assessment 

Up to a certain point, the history of the Trade Union 
movement in the United States shows the same phases 
of development, except that they are not so definitely 
marked as in Great Britain, principally for the reason 
that there has not been such a pronounced difference 
between the employers and the working people of the 
new as in the older country. 

The modern Trade Union, as the term is understood 
in America and England, is an organization of wage 
earners exclusively; and herein it differs in principle 
from the ancient trade guild, which was composed of 
craftsmen who owned the means of production, and 
oftentimes the raw material; and yet Trade Unions 
existed anterior to the establishment of the factory sys- 
tem. It is a popular supposition that the modern Trade 
Union is the descendant of the old trade guild; but the 
best authorities say that this is an error. In England, 
as in America, Unions have been primarily and until 
recently almost exclusively devoted to trade matters, 
the motto of the workingmen of the two countries 
being "No politics in the Union !" Still, organized 



LABOR'S ATTITUDE 67 

Labor in both countries has always strenuously fought 
for legislation directly in its own interest; and in the 
last Presidential campaign (1908) the American Fed- 
eration of Labor, which by its constitution is inhibited 
from taking political action, openly — in an official sense 
— supported the Democratic candidate, on the principle 
of "helping our friends and fighting our enemies. " 

During the year 1909 the British Government at- 
tempted to sweep away "sweated" labor, not only by 
prescribing the conditions under which certain kinds of 
industry must be performed, but by establishing a "min- 
imum wage." This has been denounced as "rank So- 
cialism;" and so it is, in a manner; but it is only a 
reversion to the ancient British policy of State interfer- 
ence with the relations between employer and employed, 
the difference being, however, that while formerly the 
object of the law was chiefly to keep Labor down to 
the lowest possible condition, the object now is to raise 
the wages and the general environment. The famous — 
or rather, infamous — "Statute of Laborers," passed in 
the reign of Edward the Third (1327-1377), enacted 
that no person was to pay more than the old wages, 
although the price of provisions had increased very 
much; and employers who paid more than the pre- 
scribed rate were to be fined treble the amount paid or 
promised, while artificers and laborers were to be put 
in jail if they accepted more than the schedule wages. 
Magna Charta affected freemen alone, and at the time 
of King John it is probable that nearly one-half of the 
entire population of England were in a state of slavery; 
and on the Continent, not only was the proportion of 
slaves greater than in England, but their condition was 
much worse. Hume, the historian, describes the con- 



68 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

dition of the working classes of Europe in ancient days 
as the most important difference between the social life 
then and in modern times. During the period of serf- 
dom there was no "working class," as the term is under- 
stood now — that is, there were no free laborers who 
did not own the means of production and who worked 
for a stated wage. Consumers and owners provided 
the raw material, and they hired craftsmen direct; arti- 
sans were also kept regularly among the servants of 
the wealthy; the villeins (serfs) tilled the soil, and 
workmen in towns lived in the shop of their employer 
— a system still surviving in London with shop assist- 
ants, but fast disappearing, the custom now being 
known as "living in." The capitalist-employer, the first 
middleman, was not known until the seventh century; 
and the capitalist-purchaser of raw materials came 
later. Capitalist-artisans developed in the sixteenth cen- 
tury — that is, they became the purchasers of the raw 
materials upon which they exercised their handicraft skill ; 
and in course of time they grew prosperous, accumulated 
capital, and ceased working at their trades themselves, 
and became "bosses," employing their former comrades 
in the industry who had not been as fortunate as they 
had been. 

"Classes" began to arise in trade; and the non- 
working capitalist made his appearance. From the 
end of the fourteenth century down to the repeal of 
the anti-combination laws the whole spirit of British 
legislation was that of opposition to the working classes ; 
and Prof. Rogers says (Six Centuries of Labor and 
Wages) that for fifteen or sixteen generations there 
was no appreciable improvement in the condition of the 
people. In 1562 the Statute of Laborers was amended. 



LABOR'S ATTITUDE 69 

and a new rate of wages was laid down, it being ad- 
mitted in the new Act itself that the old rate was too 
low in several particulars. This extraordinary Statute 
prohibited Labor combinations throughout its entire 
continuance. It was not actually repealed until 1875, 
and then the last vestige of feudalism — that is, as it 
affected human liberty — was swept from the British 
statute books, although long before that time practically 
all trace of the old servitude system had disappeared. 

Slowly the Trade Unionists entered the political 
arena : — first to obtain legislation directly affecting them 
as wage earners in their particular trade; and then in 
time the field of political agitation widened, and the 
extension of the franchise and a national system of edu- 
cation were taken up. 

The "Taff Vale Decision." 

In July, 1901, the British House of Lords delivered 
the famous "Taff Vale decision/' which has had far- 
reaching and unlooked-for results. The immediate 
effect was to cause Trade Unionists generally to enter 
politics, not only individually, but collectively and 
officially, as Unions ; and the ultimate consequence was 
virtually to cause an alliance^ between the Trade Union- 
ists, as such, with the Socialists; — or, possibly a more 
correct way to state the case is to say that it led to the 
capture of the British Trade Unions by the out-and-out 
Socialists. And finally, the outcome of the public agita- 
tion and the Parliamentary pressure of the combined 
forces of Labor and Socialism, was the passage of the 
"Trades Dispute Act," in 1906, — a law which specially 
favors Trade Unionists above their fellow-citizens. This 
law and the causes which led to its passage are so mo- 



70 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

mentous, that they call for a statement somewhat in 
detail — especially as that Act is held to be largely 
responsible for the extraordinary outburst of violence 
in the dock and railroads strikes of 191 1. 

In August, 1900, there was a strike on the Taff Vale 
Railway, in South Wales, the strikers being members 
of the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. A 
suit was brought against members of the Union for 
persuading and intimidating workmen to break their 
contracts with the railroad company, and for aiding and 
abetting violence; and the court awarded damages to 
the extent of £23,000 (about $115,000). At first the 
railway company had sued the members of the Union 
individually, but, under a ruling of the court, the Amal- 
gamated Society of Railway Servants was made a party 
to the suit. On the award of the damages the Union 
appealed^ and the decision was reversed; then the rail- 
way company appealed to the highest tribunal, the 
House of Lords; — and the decision of the first court 
was sustained. This decision, confirmed by the supreme 
judicial authority in the British Empire, did not afifect 
Trade Unions in a criminal sense, but it held that they 
were not fully incorporated, and that they could be 
sued and cast in damages for the action of their agents, 
whenever this action was without justification and 
caused damage to other persons. Incidentally, it may 
be mentioned that the strike was entered into by mem- 
bers of the Union contrary to the wishes of the execu- 
tive, although subsequently the Union supported it. 
The House of Lords held that the members of the 
Union were liable individually and that the association 
itself was also liable; — and it was on the latter holding 
that the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants was 



LABOR'S ATTITUDE 71 

compelled to pay £23,000 damages to the Taff Vale 
Railway Co. Not for many years had any decision 
of the highest court caused such a sensation and popu- 
lar protest. While the case was in the lower court — 
but before a decision had been rendered — the Trade 
Unions had recognized its importance ; and the National 
Congress of Unions issued an invitation to Labor and 
Socialists societies to join together in the formation of 
a "Labor Representation Committee," which was formed 
in 1900, and is a political committee to indorse and sup- 
port Labor candidates nominated by its constituent 
Unions and societies. It is now the Labor Party, and 
is practically a Socialist organization. The following 
are the principal clauses of the Trades Disputes Act, 
passed in 1906— primarily for the express purpose of 
changing the law as laid down by the House of Lords 
in the Taff Vale decision — against most bitter protests 
on the part of the business and conservative elements 
of the country ; and it is important to bear in mind that 
American organized Labor demands similar legislation: 

1. An act done in pursuance of an agreement or combina- 
tion by two or more persons shall, if done in contemplation 
or furtherance of a trade dispute, not be actionable unless the 
act, if done without any agreement or combination, would 
be actionable. 

2. It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on 
their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union, or of an 
individual employer or firm in contemplation or furtherance 
of a trade dispute, to attend at or near the house or place 
where a person resides or works or carries on business or 
happens to be, if they so attend merely for the purpose of 
peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or of 
peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from 
working. 



72 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

3. An act done by a person in contemplation of furtherance 
of a trade dispute shall not be actionable on the ground only 
that it induces some other person to break a contract of 
employment or that it is an interference with the trade, busi- 
ness, or employment of some other person, or with the right 
of some other person to dispose of his capital or his labor 
as he wills. 

4. An action against a trade union, whether of workmen 
or masters, or against any members or officials thereof on 
behalf of themselves and all other members of the trade 
union in respect of any tortious act alleged to have been com- 
mitted by or on behalf of the trade union, shall not be enter- 
tained by any court. 

Labor Revolt, August, 191 1. 

The month of August, 191 1, saw the greatest Labor 
strike in British history, and it was accompanied by 
such violence as to border on civil war. The trouble 
commenced by strikes of seamen, followed by dockers, 
both of which classes of workers received substantial 
concessions as a result of their revolt against condi- 
tions which were intolerable from an American stand- 
point; but the victory was sullied by dastardly personal 
outrages and destruction of property. While these 
strikes were in progress, the railroad men "came out" 
on demands for the redress of grievances and the recog- 
nition of the union, and in so doing they plainly vio- 
lated an agreement they had entered into, under the 
Conciliatory Act of 1907. An epidemic of "sympa- 
thetic" strikes broke out all over the country, and an 
avowed attempt was made to paralyze all industry and 
to starve the nation into recognition of the demands. 
The Government were compelled to use regular troops 
in London, Liverpool and other large cities, and a num- 
ber of sanguinary conflicts occurred, in which several 



LABOR'S ATTITUDE 73 

lives were lost. In Wales assaults were made upon 
the Jews, on the charge that they practiced usury and 
raised the price of food during the strikes. At first 
popular sympathy was with the strikers, because it was 
generally recognized that Labor was not getting its 
fair share of the profits of industry; but this sentiment 
of good-will was alienated when the strikes took the 
form of violence against individuals, destruction of 
property and revolt against constituted authority. Just 
as an "universal strike" was about to be declared, peace 
was restored by the employers partially recognizing the 
unions and the Government appointing a Commission 
of Enquiry. After making all allowance for the inevit- 
able excitement and demoralization incidental to nearly 
all strikes on a large scale, there can be no doubt that 
the unparalleled outburst of excesses was owing to the 
bitter "class-conscious" feeling engendered within recent 
years by the absorption of Socialism on the part of 
Trade Unionists; indeed, the whole affair, in its exhibi- 
tion of fierce revolutionary spirit and its almost fanat- 
ical manifestation of Labor "solidarity," w r as more like 
a demonstration of French "Syndicalism" than of Brit- 
ish Trade Unionism. Early in September the British 
Trade Unions held their annual convention; the Gov- 
ernment were denounced for using the troops, and a 
resolution was passed demanding the "nationalization" 
of the railroads. It is significant that the Irish railroad 
men refused to strike, and one of the reasons given was 
that the movement was a Socialistic one. Subsequently, 
on a trivial issue, there was a strike on the part of some 
of the Irish railroad men, but it soon collapsed. 

The New York Sun of September 10, 191 1, contained 
a long letter from its London correspondent reviewing 



74 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

the evidence taken before the Royal Commission of 
Enquiry. It appeared that the men charged bad faith 
on the part of the employers in regard to the operation 
of the Conciliatory Board of 1907, which they denounced 
as worthless; it also appeared that the Trade Union 
leaders were doubtful whether the members would 
accept any finding of an Arbitration Board if it was 
adverse to their demands; it was also plain that the 
British Trade Unionists are now dominated by an 
extreme "class-conscious" feeling and are also embued 
with a spirit of not only national but international "sol- 
idarity/' The correspondent proceeded to say: 

The new strike may still be in a sense a labor revolt, the 
fight of the workers for better conditions, but its inspiration 
is political and there seems good reason to believe interna- 
tional. The politics, moreover, are those of Continental So- 
cialism, vague, ill-formed and violent. In an interview pub- 
lished to-day, H. M. Hyndman, practically the founder and 
certainly the most distinguished member of the Socialist 
Party in England, says: "I have preached class hatred for 
thirty years. . . . We are at war — civil war." ... As 
to the international element in the industrial situation, Tom 
Mann (one of the prominent strike leaders) has openly 
boasted that he and his friends are part of a great Con- 
tinental and American confederation. "Before the English 
strike broke out,'' writes the Berlin correspondent of the 
Standard (London), "Herr Jochade, the German President 
of the Transport Union, was in possession of the full pro- 
gramme of the English strikers." ... It is certain 
that in England the day of the combined strike has arrived. 
The international strike is only another step, if a big one. 

Since the strike, a movement has developed all over 
Great Britain among not only employers but conserva- 
tive citizens of all classes, irrespective of party, as well 
as among the non-unionist wage-earners (who com- 



LABOR'S ATTITUDE 75 

prise probably three-fourths of the entire number of 
the workingmen of the country), for the repeal, or at 
least an amendment, of the clauses granting special 
privileges to organized labor under the new Trades Dis- 
putes Act as to "picketing" and the exemption of Trade 
Union funds for damages. 

American Political-Labor Movement. 

The American Labor movement has had a phase in 
its development which has been absent in Great Britain, 
and that is in the existence of an intermediate charac- 
ter of organization between Trade Unionism and Social- 
ism. These organizations have been rather general in 
their membership (although mostly confined to manual 
workers), as also in their objects, they aiming at eco- 
nomic changes through political action, as well as 
through the "permeation" of public opinion, as the 
English Fabians say. 

It is a curious fact that the Political-Labor movement 
in America was started by two young Englishmen, 
brothers — George Henry and Frederick W. Evans, who 
came to this country in 1820. They were adherents of 
the Owen movement, and as soon as they landed in 
America they plunged headlong into the Labor cam- 
paign, which soon assumed an aggressive form. At 
Ithaca, N. Y., George Henry Evans, in about 1822, 
started The Man, the first labor paper published in 
'America; he next issued The Workingman's Advocate, 
at New York, in 1825-30: and in 1853 he started Young 
America. At the head of the latter paper Editor Evans 
printed the first distinctively Labor platform ever con- 
structed, — at least in America — and as such it is of 
peculiar interest, its planks being as follows: 



76 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

First. The right of man to the soil. "Vote yourself a 
farm;" 

Second. Down with monopolies, especially the United 
States Bank; 

Third. Freedom of public lands ; 

Fourth. Homesteads made inalienable; 

Fifth. Abolition of all laws for the collection of debts; 

Sixth. A general bankrupt law; 

Seventh. A lien of the laborer upon his work for his 
wages ; 

Eighth. Abolition of imprisonment for debt; 

Ninth. Equal rights for women with men in all respects; 

Tenth. Abolition of chattel slavery, and of wages slavery; 

Eleventh. Land limitation to one hundred and sixty acres ; 
no person after the passage of this law to become possessed 
of more than that amount of land ; but when a land monopo- 
list died, his heirs were to take each his legal number of 
acres, and be compelled to sell the surplus, using the pro- 
ceeds as they pleased; 

Twelfth. Mails in the United States to run on the Sab- 
bath. 



These demands are said to have been endorsed by 
over 600 papers in the United States, and they were the 
basis of the Workingmen's Party, which held the first 
Labor-political convention ever held in the United 
States, at Syracuse, N. Y. ; but the party was soon 
absorbed by the "Locofoco" or anti-monopolist move- 
ment. 

The first truly national organization for the agitation 
of specific Labor demands was the National Labor 
Union, which held its first convention at Baltimore, Md., 
in 1866. It is said that this organization worked on a 
preconcerted plan in alliance with the Continental "In- 
ternational ;" but it refused to adopt a resolution pre- 
sented by a German-American Socialist of the Lassalle 



LABOR'S ATTITUDE 77 

school, in favor of independent political action. Hill- 
quit, the American Socialist writer, says, with evident 
disgust, that although the National Labor Union sent a 
delegate to the International Convention, in 1869, it 
never joined that Communist body, "and never devel- 
oped into a genuine class-conscious workingmen's 
party." In 1872 the Union, in conjunction with the 
Farmers' Alliance, nominated Presidential candidates, 
thus going clear over into the political field; but this 
action caused the collapse of the organization, thereby 
showing — what has a number of times since been con- 
firmed — the traditional dislike of American Trade 
Unionists to enter the political arena as organizations; 
but, as pointed out a number of times, after-develop- 
ments show that this attitude has considerably changed 
within recent years. 

The most famous Labor organization in the world 
was the Knights of Labor, when that society was at 
its zenith — say in 1886-7. I* 1 the days of its great 
prominence there was much discussion as to whether it 
was a Socialist body, this suspicion arising largely be- 
cause of the fact that for some time it was a secret 
society. Strictly speaking, it cannot be classed as being 
Socialist, although some of its principles are identical 
with "immediate demands" of the Marxian organiza- 
tions. Indeed, it is said that a Christian Socialist named 
George E. McNeill, drew up the first platform of the 
Knights of Labor; but he was also the "father" of the 
American Federation of Labor, and all through its 
career that remarkable organization has stood aloof 
from Socialism, although of late years it has shown 
indications of yielding to the ever-increasing pressure. 
According to a story given by Hillquit in his History of 



78 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Socialism, the origin of the Knights of Labor was no 
less a Socialist source than the Communist Manifesto 
of Marx and Engels. The story is that U. S. Stephens, 
one of the founders and the first Grand Master Work- 
man of the order, used this document largely in the 
preparation of the declaration of the principles of the 
Knights. But, however this may be, the preamble to 
those principles declared that the organization was not 
a political one. 

There have been a number of other Labor-political 
organizations which have had principles akin to the 
"immediate demands" of out-and-out Socialists, such as 
the Greenback Party ; but they only represented a pass- 
ing phase of popular discontent with existing economic 
conditions, and cannot properly be called Socialist. As 
a matter of fact, one of the most important of these 
movements, "Henry Georgeism," while extremely "rad- 
ical" on the one question of the taxation of land values, 
is looked upon by strict Socialists in America as sup- 
porting the present competitive system of industry, and 
therefore as being anti-Socialist; and Henry George 
himself was unequivocally opposed to Marxian Social- 
ism, he looking upon it as unsound and impracticable. 
But British Socialists have accepted both "Henry 
Georgeism" and land nationalism. 

The Federation of Labor and Socialism. 

It is a significant fact that nearly all the great Labor 
and Trade Union leaders in America have been in the 
past opposed to philosophic Socialism, although, of 
course, they have been earnest advocates of social 
reform. Among these may be mentioned Henry George, 
Terence V. Powderly, Arthur, John McBride, and the 



LABOR'S ATTITUDE 79 

two most representative American Trade Union leaders 
now living, Samuel Gompers and John Mitchell. 

Samuel Gompers, President of the American Feder- 
ation of Labor, has been bitterly denounced by Social- 
ists, and on the occasion of his last visit to England and 
the Continent (in the summer of 1909), he was "ex- 
posed" by American "comrades" in the party press of 
those countries; and the American Socialist journals 
have sneered at his pretensions as the "envoy extraor- 
dinary and minister plenipotentiary'' of the Labor organ- 
izations of this country. 

John Mitchell, who was formerly President of the 
United Mine Workers of America, and is now Vice- 
President of the American Federation of Labor, states 
as follows, in his admirable book, Organised Labor, the 
position of American trade unionists as to "wage slav- 
ery" — the term applied by Socialists to the conditions 
under the present system of compensation of labor: 

Trade unionism is not based upon a necessary opposition 
to the so-called "wage slavery" of the present time. By 
the phrase "wage slavery" is usually meant a condition of 
practical enslavement, brought about, not by legal, but by 
economic subjection, a slavery enforced, not by the lash, but 
by pangs of hunger. The trade unionist recognizes that in 
certain sections of the country and in certain industries, the 
wage-earners, especially women and children, are in a con- 
dition so debased and degraded, and are so subject to op- 
pression and exploitation, that it practically amounts to 
slavery. Where such slavery exists, however, trade unionism 
is opposed to the slavery as such, and not to the wages 
as such. Trade unionism is not irrevocably committed to 
the maintenance of the wage system, nor is it irrevocably 
committed to its abolition . . . and if it were ultimately 
to be shown that the system is incompatible with a high 
standard of living and a full development of the capabilities 



8o WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

of the American workingman, the hosts of organized labor 
would unite in an effort to secure its abolition. 

As to the relations of the American Federation of 
Labor to Socialism, Mr. Mitchell says, in the same 
book: 

Numerous attempts have been made by Socialist members 
of the Federation to secure control of the body and to com- 
mit it to the Socialist platform; but their efforts have been 
unsuccessful. The trade unions and the Federation of Labor 
itself stand for a number of reforms contained in the plat- 
form of the Socialist party; but the great majority of the 
members, whatever their political sympathies, refuse to per- 
mit the Federation to be committed to any definite political 
party, existing or to be formed. 

At the convention of the Federation of Labor in 1885, 
Socialist members of the organization for the first time 
introduced a resolution advocating independent political 
action; but the resolution was defeated. It is said that 
of the 107 delegates who originally formed the Feder- 
ation of Labor in 1886, only six were outspoken Social- 
ists. Mr. Hillquit (who, it is well to remember in this 
connection, is an avowed Socialist) says in his History, 
that Mr. Gompers, who has been from the first the 
President, was at the formation "very friendly to Social- 
ism," although he "in later years was its most decided 
opponent." In his biography in the Encyclopedia of 
Social Reform (which may be considered semi-official), 
Mr. Gompers' position is thus defined : "He is not op- 
posed to the aims of Socialism, though not committed 
to its views, and he believes in political action on the 
part of Labor, but holds that the main hope of Labor is 
in the Trade-Union movement and that to commit that 



LABOR'S ATTITUDE 81 

movement to any political party or endeavor would be 
to disrupt it and hurt it irremediably/' 

There have always been a certain number of delegates 
to the conventions of the Federation who have been 
Socialists. At the convention of the Federation in 1890 
the question was very vigorously discussed. It seems 
that some time before the convention, President Gom- 
pers had refused a charter to the Central Labor Fed- 
eration of New York, on the ground that affiliated with 
that body was a "section" of the Socialist Labor Party; 
and as the latter organization was decidedly political, 
Mr. Gompers' argument was that the Central Labor 
Federation of New York had itself become affiliated 
with politics. This, he ruled, made the New York Cen- 
tral Labor Federation ineligible for membership in the 
American Federation of Labor, as the latter organiza- 
tion is prohibited by its constitution from affiliation with 
political parties. In reply, the Socialist Labor Party 
claimed that it was an organization devoted to Labor 
interests exclusively, and that its participation in poli- 
tics was only incidental. But that really seemed like 
quibbling. The vote in the American Federation of 
Labor on the question as to whether the New York 
body should be admitted, stood:— for, 535; against, 
1699; and Mr. Hillquit thinks that that vote was proba- 
bly a good test of the strength of Socialism in the Fed- 
eration at that time. 

At the convention of the Federation in 1893, at Chi- 
cago, a delegate, who was also a member of the Social- 
ist Labor Party, introduced a resolution eulogizing the 
Trade Unionists of Great Britain for having taken inde- 
pendent political action, endorsing that action on the 
part of "our British comrades," and submitting to the 



82 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Labor organizations of America a proposition involv- 
ing a similar programme and basis of political action, 
with the request that the delegates to the succeeding 
convention of the Federation be instructed to vote upon 
this subject. This resolution was adopted. There is 
some dispute as to the facts of the sequel. At the con- 
vention of 1894, when the question came up in accord- 
ance with the preceding action, and a vote was about 
to be taken on one of the political planks — that favoring 
"the collective ownership by the people of all means of 
production and distribution" — a substitute was offered, 
demanding that public lands should only be granted to 
actual tillers of the soil ; and the substitute was adopted. 
At four successive conventions resolutions in favor of 
Socialism were introduced, but were not adopted. At 
the last of these (in 1898) the Federation defined its 
position as follows: 

We hold that the trade unions of America, as comprised in 
the American Federation of Labor, do not now, and never 
have, declared against discussion of economic and political 
questions in the meetings of the respective unions. We are 
committed against the endorsement or introduction of par- 
tisan politics, religious differences, or race, prejudice. We 
hold it to be the duty of trade unionists to study and dis- 
cuss all questions that have any bearing upon their industrial 
or political liberty. 

In 1890 the Socialist Labor Party officially withdrew 
their "sympathy and support" from the American Fed- 
eration of Labor, on account of the latter's refusal to 
endorse Socialism; and in 1895 it severed all connec- 
tion with the Knights of Labor for the same reason. 

At the Convention of the Federation in 1910 a threat- 
ened opposition on the part of the Socialists to the re- 
election of Mr. Gompers as President, failed to mate- 



LABOR'S ATTITUDE 83 

rialize; and another threatened demonstration failed 
in 1911. 

Socialist Criticism of the Federation. 

Morris Hillquit may be said to be the historian and 
chief literary advocate of Marxist Socialism of the 
strictest sect in America. He was the representative 
of the American Socialist Party at the International 
Socialist Congress, held at Stuttgart, Germany, August 
18, 1907, and he there made a report on "Recent 
Progress of the Socialist and Labor movements in the 
United States." He noted that the American Federa- 
tion of Labor, "the largest body of American working- 
men, for the first time in its existence of a quarter of a 
century, violated its vow of political neutrality, when 
it interfered in the congressional elections of 1906." 
Mr. Hillquit was sarcastically critical as to the attitude 
of the Federation of Labor towards politics generally 
and especially towards Socialism. In his report to the 
International Socialist Congress he informed the dele- 
gates that instead of entering organized working-class 
politics, the Federation had sought favors from State 
Legislatures and the Federal Congress by "lobbying 
methods." The fruits of that activity have, he claimed, 
been very meagre indeed, and the courts had slaughtered 
one Labor law after another. Following lack of action 
by the President of the United States and by Congress 
to the "bill of grievances" of Labor, presented by the 
Federation, that organization took part in the Congres- 
sional campaign of 1906, opposing those candidates for 
re-election who had not favored Labor measures in 
Congress. But, says our Socialist critic : "Unfor- 
tunately the campaign was conducted by the officers of 



84 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

the Federation on the lines of the short-sighted, half- 
hearted policy, which always characterized their polit- 
ical views and actions. . . . And the result was 
that the greatest Labor organization with its two million 
members and tremendous powers in the world of 
workers, made a lamentable poor debut in politics. How- 
ever, the mere entry of the Federation in politics was 
a fact full of significance/' 

Mr. Hillquit proceeded in his report to the Interna- 
tional convention to set forth the present attitude of 
American Socialism towards organized Labor, and par- 
ticularly toward the Federation of Labor. He recounted 
the past efforts of the Socialists to induce the Federa- 
tion to take up separate political action, and he men- 
tioned that they were successful to a certain extent, as 
in 1886 a national convention of the Federation adopted 
a resolution urging its members "to give cordial sup- 
port to the independent political movements of the 
working class." Then he adds : 

These efforts on the part of the Socialists were perfectly 
natural at a time when the political organization of Socialism 
had not much more than a nominal existence in the United 
States, and practically the entire strength of organized labor 
was represented by the trade union movement. But when 
the Socialist party had commenced to demonstrate its ability 
to organize the working class of the country politically on th$ 
clear-cut lines of international socialism, the wisdom of forc- 
ing the creation of a rival political party of labor, of a pre- 
sumably less satisfactory character, began to be seriously 
questioned. The Socialists in the American Federation of 
Labor have accordingly abandoned the efforts to "capture" 
the Federation bodily, and have transferred their energies to 
the task of educating the individual trade unionists, in local 
meetings and state and national conventions, in the proper 
understanding of the Socialist philosophy. 



LABOR'S ATTITUDE 85 

Mr. Hillquit complains that "In all discussions on 
Socialism on the floor of the Federation conventions, 
Mr. Samuel Gompers and other officers and leaders of 
the organization, invariably took the somewhat anti- 
quated position of 'pure and simple' trade unionism and 
occasionally evinced a very decided hostility towards 
the Socialist movement/' 

So likewise, the Socialists endeavored to capture the 
Knights of Labor. As a preliminary, they induced a 
number of Socialist Germans and Jews to join the 
Knights, and an "Assembly" of these men was formed 
in New York known as the "Excelsior Club;" and in 
1893 Ae Socialist Labor Party obtained control of the 
New York "District Assembly of the Knights of Labor." 
The Socialist members of the Knights made it so un- 
comfortable for Terence V. Powderly, as Grand Mas- 
ter Workman, that in 1893 he vacated that office after 
having held it for fourteen years. The Knights identi- 
fied themselves with politics, and some of the planks 
of their platform are in the direction of "State Social- 
ism," but it has not formally identified itself with So- 
cialism, and has resisted successfully the efforts of the 
Socialist Labor Party to capture it. In fact, from 1895 
there has been open antagonism between the Knights 
of Labor and the Socialist Labor Party. When this 
antagonism came to a head, a number of members of 
the Knights of Labor seceded and formed the Social- 
ist Trade and Labor Alliance, as an "annex" to the 
Socialist Labor Party; and in form of organization it 
was an exact copy of the Knights of Labor. Although 
it granted charters to 200 labor organizations, the Alli- 
ance was a failure from the very start, and it now exists 
only in name. 



CHAPTER V 
U.TOPIANISM 

Whatever is deemed to be idealistically impracticable 
is called "Utopian." To the Individualist, Socialism in 
general is impracticable; — to him, therefore, it is Uto- 
pian. But to the student, and particularly to the ad- 
herent of Marxism, Utopian Socialism has a special, 
definite meaning: — the application of idealistic and arbi- 
trary theories of government to industrial production 
and communal possession and distribution of goods, and 
also to social relations, by voluntary association. 

Scientific Socialists recognize the value of Utopian- 
ism as demonstrating, up to a certain point, the advan- 
tages of co-operative effort, but they deny that it is 
Socialism proper. 

Utopian Romances. 

The Utopians are of two kinds : — the theorists 
purely, and those who put their theories into practice. 
The theorists have generally expressed their ideals of 
the perfect political and social community in the form 
of romances, — which were the "parents of golden 
dreams" — and sometimes in a philosophical or an expos- 
itory form. Utopian communistic schemes have found 
advocates in almost every age, and in many countries. 

The most classic of the idealization of Utopianism is 
the Republic of the Greek Philosopher, Plato, who was 

86 



UTOPIANISM 87 

born more than 400 years before Christ. His system 
was the most extreme form of the subordination of the 
individual to the State; it was one of "extravagant 
Communism and smiling Optimism," a combination of 
the speculative and the practical. It provided for the 
care of children by the State instead of by their parents ; 
it established public education; prescribed regulations 
as to marriage ; it restricted the number of births ; it 
laid down regulations as to the occupations of citizens, 
these occupations being controlled by the State; and 
while "equality of opportunity" was given to all — to 
women as to men — citizens were divided into classes 
according to capacity. 

The use of the word "Utopian," as applied to the 
idealization of Communism or Socialism, comes from 
a romance by Sir Thomas More, the great Lord Chan- 
cellor of England during part of the reign of King 
Henry VIII. The romance was published in 15 16, its 
title being Utopia. The meaning of the word is no- 
where, and its application to the romance is obvious, as 
the book describes an imaginary island, the inhabitants 
of which held philosophical, religious, and communistic 
views which were remarkable considering the age in 
which Utopia was written. In addition to a popular 
democratic government, Utopian citizens had a com- 
munity of goods, meals in common, and freedom of 
creed; and there was monogamy in the marriage rela- 
tion. There was no money, and gold and silver were 
considered to be fit only for the baser uses. All save 
the old and infirm had to work six hours a day. Crimi- 
nals were enslaved, and had to perform the most labori- 
ous and disagreeable work. Once every ten years the 
citizens chose their houses by lot, 



88 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

The New Atlantis, by Lord Bacon, is a similar work 
to Utopia. It describes an imaginary island, on which 
the narrator was wrecked, and where was found a most 
perfect philosophical government, bent on the cultiva- 
tion of the natural sciences. 

The City of the Sun, by Tomaso Campanella, resem- 
bles Plato's Republic, and some critics say that it is an 
imitation of the great Athenian's masterpiece. Cam- 
panella (who was born in 1568) was a brilliant but 
sadly unfortunate Italian philosopher. For reasons 
which are not clear (but probably partly political and 
partly ecclesiastical), the authorities cast him into a 
dungeon at Naples ; he remained there for 2j years, and 
was tortured on the rack seven times to force him to 
confess to heresy, but without avail. The City of the 
Sun was an ideal republic combined with a system of 
theocratic Communism. As in Plato's Republic, there 
was a community of wives as well as of goods; and 
there was also State control of population. Campanella 
and his fellow-countryman, Telesio, are sometimes des- 
ignated as "the predecessors of Bacon." 

A much more modern Utopian romance than any of 
the above, is The Voyage in Icaria, by fitienne Cabet, 
the founder of the Icarian communities in the United 
States. Cabet was born in Dijon, France, in 1788. He 
was a revolutionary Communist, and being given the 
choice of two years' imprisonment or five years of exile, 
he chose the latter, and went to England — that refuge 
of so many political and ecclesiastical exiles, both good 
and bad. After his return to France he published his 
Voyage en Icarie, which described the visit of a young 
Englishman to the far-off country of Icaria, and the 
story is the journal of his adventures and discoveries. 



UTOPIANISM 89 

The government of Icaria was that of a democratic 
commonwealth, with co-operative industrialism, pro- 
gressive income tax, State regulation of wages, na- 
tional workshops, agricultural colonies, political free- 
dom, liberal education, and equality of the sexes. Alone 
among all Socialists, Utopian or Scientific, Cabet under- 
took to settle one of the most difficult of the many 
problems arising from any proposed system of Col- 
lectivism, viz., that relating to the publication of news- 
papers. Cabet decided that there should not be any 
newspapers allowed — but only one official journal ! 

It is not necessary to give an outline of the most 
modern and the most popular of all Utopian romances 
— Bellamy's Looking Backward and its sequel Equality, 
as both books have such a wide current circulation. The 
economic principles so picturesquely presented in Look- 
ing Backward were formulated into an economic scheme 
and party in the United States called "Nationalism," 
which was, in a way, a rival to Marxian Socialism, and 
was much opposed by the followers of the latter. Bel- 
lamy himself described Nationalism as "industrial self- 
government." The system was a combination of Oppor- 
tunism and Idealism; it was Socialist in the sense that 
it involved the nationalization of industry and the com- 
munal ownership of property; but the Marxian phil- 
osophy of the materialistic conception of history and of 
the class struggle had no place in it; consequently, 
Nationalism is not considered genuine Scientific Social- 
ism, but simply a form of Utopianism. For a short 
time the Nationalist Party aroused great interest and 
enthusiasm, but ultimately it was merged into the Popu- 
list or People's Party. But, short-lived as it was, Na- 
tionalism had much to do with popularizing Socialism 



90 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

in America, as well as in England, where Looking Back- 
ward had an enormous number of readers. 

Experimental Utopianism. 

So far as common ownership and common distribu- 
tion of goods are concerned, Experimental Utopian So- 
cialism is not a modern idea. Passing over the com- 
munal societies of the Roman Catholic Church, and 
those of the dissenting sects, from the days of primi- 
tive Christianity, there were a number of attempts to 
establish Ideal Communism both prior to and immedi- 
ately after the Reformation. 

The Anabaptists in Germany, before they developed 
their sexual excesses, tried in many ways to put in 
practice a true Communism. 

The "Brethren of the Common Life" (or, "Brethren 
of the Common Lot," or, "Brethren of the Social Life," 
as they were differently called), were founded in 1376 
in Holland. They practiced Communism in goods, and 
in 1430 there were 130 societies. 

The "Libertines" were a sort of Anarchists, in the 
1 6th century, who were opposed to Calvin's dictator- 
ship. 

Early in the 16th century there was a group of Com- 
munists in Holland called "Familists" or "Davidists;" 
and there was also a body of French Socialists called 
"Familists." 

One of the most interesting and successful enter- 
prises ever undertaken by the Order of Jesuits was the 
establishment of a number of communistic settlements, 
or "reductions," as they were called, in the South Amer- 
ican country of Paraguay, in the early part of the 17th 
century. These "reductions" were established by virtue 



UTOPIANISM 91 

of a privilege conferred on the Jesuits by Pope Greg- 
ory XIII, licensing them to engage in commerce. The 
settlements were gradually extended over the country 
watered by the Parana and the Uruguay, and continued 
to flourish until the Order of Jesuits was suppressed 
in 1767. The plan of government of the "reductions" 
was parochial, it being administered entirely by the 
parish clergy. The native Indians were collected into 
villages, each village having its church and curate, who 
was assisted by several priests. All property was held 
in common, the food supplies produced by each settle- 
ment being stored in magazines, from which each family 
were given enough for their wants, special provision 
being made for aged persons, widows and orphans, and 
the sick. The surplus of the products was sold by 
agents at Buenos Ayres, and the receipts were used 
partly in paying taxes to the king, and partly in buying 
ornaments for the church, and the remainder in pur- 
chasing articles of necessity which the settlers could 
not manufacture for themselves. In 1732 there were 
thirty villages or parishes under the care of the mis- 
sionaries, containing a population of 141,000. This 
was probably the most successful attempt at Commun- 
ism since the days of classic Athens ; and like the much- 
vaunted Socialism of that time, the Communism of the 
"reductions" of Paraguay was undemocratic : for, 
while classic Athenian Socialism was based on the slav- 
ery of the vast majority of the population, the Com- 
munism of Paraguay had its strength on the servility of 
the entire working people (the indolent, ignorant and 
superstitious aborigines) toward their Jesuit instructors 
and guardians. Well-informed Socialists of the present 
day concede that the Paraguay experiment is not to be 



92 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

taken as a demonstration of the practicability of Col- 
lectivism among an intelligent and a civilized people 
under modern conditions; and Victor Cathrein, who 
himself is a Jesuit, remarks in his Socialism (which is 
the standard Roman Catholic refutation of Marxism) : 
"The reductions of Paraguay, which are frequently set 
up as models of communism, were not strictly com- 
munistic, and were destined only to be institutions of 
a transitory character." 

Secular Societies, 

Coming down to the period covered by the last hun- 
dred years or so, there have been a great many volun- 
tary associations, the main features of which have been 
co-operative labor and a communal division of products, 
either according to earnings or according to needs. A 
few of these communal associations have lasted a cen- 
tury; some of them have struggled on for half a cen- 
tury, and then died out; and not a few have had an 
existence of only a dozen or even a shorter number of 
years. 

As a rule, the sectarian societies have been the most 
successful : — they have kept together the longest, have 
acquired the most property, and have had the most 
harmonious existence. Of the secular, purely industrial 
communities, most of them have been short-lived; they 
have had a hard struggle with poverty, and have, as a 
rule, been conspicuous for dissensions. 

Comte de Claude Henri Saint-Simon (or simply, 
Saint-Simon, as generally named) was one of the his- 
toric founders of Socialism, sharing that honor with 
his fellow-countryman, Fourier, and with his British 
contemporary, Robert Owen. Saint-Simon's theories 



UTOPIAN ISM 93 

undoubtedly influenced the growth and establishment 
of socialistic ideas on the Continent and in England ; 
and probably they had some indirect effect in America, 
although his European experiments in practical Social- 
ism had no counterpart over here. Still, his name is 
closely connected with the United States, for when he 
was only 17 years of age he came to America and fought 
under Washington against the British. Later he vis- 
ited Mexico, and projected a plan for uniting the Atlan- 
tic and Pacific Oceans by a canal across the Isthmus 
of Panama; and he also advocated the Suez Canal. It 
is an interesting coincidence that the unfortunate 
Vicomte de Lesseps, who built the Suez Canal and com- 
menced the Panama Canal, was a follower of Saint- 
Simon in his Socialist theories. Saint-Simon is some- 
times called "the first Christian Socialist." After fail- 
ing to persuade the Pope to establish a new social 
economic order, he started a system of social theology 
of his own, which he styled the "New Christianity/' 
Saint-Simon, like Fourier and Owen, held that a con- 
stitutional monarchy is not necessarily incompatible 
with Socialism. [Some of the British Opportunist So- 
cialists of these times practically hold the same views, 
although theoretically they are Republicans.] All of. 
Fourier's experiments were confined to France, and 
they collapsed after a few years, through divisions over 
the sexual relations. 

Not only was Robert Owen the first to approximately 
see the relation of social problems to the "industrial 
revolution" which had taken place, but he was also the 
pioneer of secular Utopian Socialism. But, earnest as 
Owen was, and supported actively as he was by able 
and influential men on both sides of the Atlantic, all 



94 V/HAT IS SOCIALISM? 

his experiments turned out failures. He established 
communities in Lanarkshire, Scotland; in County Clare, 
Ireland; in Hampshire, England; and then he turned 
his attention to America. In 1803 George Rapp, the 
leader of a German religious sect, came to the United 
States, and established a communal society in Pennsyl- 
vania, and in 1814 it moved to Posey County, Ind., on 
the Wabash River, where it founded a settlement named 
New Harmony. Ten years later Owen bought the 
estate for $150,000; and in that year (1824) he came 
to America to re-organize the society, and to start it 
on its career as the first example in secular industrial 
Utopian Socialism. Owen was received with great 
enthusiasm by the American people, his fame as a 
reformer having preceded him. He made speeches in 
a number of the large cities, and at Washington the use 
of the Hall of the House of Representatives was granted 
him for an address, at which were present not only 
members of the Senate and House, but the President of 
the United States and the President-elect, and the 
Judges of the Supreme Court. Although the re-organ- 
ization of the community at New Harmony was made 
under the most favorable auspices, it did not live very 
long — only eighteen months or so. 

In addition to the community at New Harmony, the 
"Owenites" had settlements at Yellow Springs, Ohio; 
at Nashoba, on the Wolf River, north of Memphis, 
Tenn. ; and at Haverstraw, N. Y., — afterwards at Ken- 
dal, near Canton, Ohio. The community in Tennessee 
was largely philanthropic, and was especially for the 
education of negroes. 

The most remarkable theories and the most extensive 
experiments in connection with Utopian Socialism were 



UTOPIANISM 95 

those which were the conception of Frangois Charles 
Marie Fourier, the third of the great trio who were 
really the originators of the basic ideas of Modern 
Socialism. Under Fourier's system every worker could 
have a capital of his own, and he could transfer his serv- 
ices from one community to another. The characteristic 
idea of his system was a supposed "harmony" which 
existed between all created things, and the requirement 
that all human instincts and desires should have free 
exercise and development. To carry out his theories, 
Fourier divided mankind into "groups" or "phalanxes," 
each of these being the social unit. The "phalanx" was 
to be grouped around the "phalanstery," — a double row 
of continuous buildings, of which the principal one was 
the "palace." Work was to be done on the co-operative 
plan; the minimum of subsistence was guaranteed to 
every member of the "phalanx," this being taken out 
of the common product of the labor of all the mem- 
bers; and what was left was to be divided between 
labor, capital, and "talent." Private capital was ad- 
mitted, but it was under communal control. It is strange 
that only two "phalanxes" were established in France, 
and they soon failed. But Fourierism became quite a 
"cult" in the United States, and there was a wide-spread 
feeling among even intellectual men that at last a prac- 
tical solution of the industrial and social-economic prob- 
lems of the age had been discovered. The man who 
introduced the fantastic theories of Fourier into Amer- 
ica was the noted social reformer, Albert Brisbane. Pre- 
vious to taking up Fourierism, Brisbane had been a fol- 
lower of Saint-Simon. As Brisbane presented Fourier- 
ism to his fellow-countrymen, he modified it with the 
view of meeting American conditions and tendencies. 



96 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

The "phalanxes" were sometimes known in America as 
"associations." Impracticable as Fourierism is now 
universally conceded to be, it was adopted and advo- 
cated by some of the most famous men of the day in 
America, among them being: Horace Greeley, the 
famous editor of the New York Tribune; Park God- 
win, the noted journalist; Charles Dana, the brilliant 
editor of the New York Sun; Nathaniel Hawthorne, 
America's greatest novelist; Ralph Waldo Emerson, 
Theodore Parker, T. W. Higginson, Henry James, 
James Russell Lowell, and the two well-known Uni- 
tarian ministers, George Ripley and William Henry 
Channing. Margaret Fuller, , the intellectual "tran- 
scendentalism" also supported the movement. With the 
single exception of the anti-slavery agitation, probably 
no propaganda in this country ever had enrolled in its 
advocacy such a remarkable galaxy of contemporary 
leaders of public thought, as Fourierism had in the 
height of its popularity. Of the numerous "phalanxes" 
established in the United States, the most famous were 
those known as "Brook Farm," near Boston, and the 
"North American," at Red Bank, Monmouth County, 
N. J. "Brook Farm" was established in 1842, and lasted 
only six years; the "North American" phalanx was 
founded in 1843, an d was * n existence for a dozen years. 
Other associations were organized in the States of New 
York, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan. A number 
of State conventions were held, and in 1844 a National 
convention met; but Fourierism only lasted a little over 
a decade in the United States, and to-day the move- 
ment is almost forgotten. Yet John Stuart Mill declared 
(Political Economy) that Fourierism was "the most 



UTOPIANISM 97 

skillfully combined, and with the greatest foresight of 
objections, of all the forms of socialism." 

The Icarian movement, like Fourierism, originated in 
France, although it had its application exclusively in 
the United States. The Icarian experiments were 
started to carry out the theories of fitienne Cabet, as 
set forth in his romance, Voyage in Icaria. The inter- 
est in his book grew to such an extent, that in 1847 
Cabet published a proclamation to the workingmen of 
France headed "Allons en Icarie!" — ("Let us go to 
Icaria!") This appeal met with an enthusiastic re- 
sponse, and Cabet contracted for a million acres of land 
in Texas, and an advance guard of Icarians left Havre 
in February, 1848. This experiment was a pathetic 
failure, and after a succession of disappointments and 
harsh experiences and dissensions, Cabet himself was 
actually expelled from the society, and in 1895 the last 
trace of the Icarian Community disappeared. And yet, 
there are Scientific Socialists who say that Icarianism 
was a nearer approach to the modern conception of 
the Co-operative Commonwealth than were any of the 
other attempts of Utopian Communism; but, as with 
Fourierism, the chief trouble seems to have been "the 
unregenerate residuum in human nature." 

Sectarian Communism. 

Although the sectarian communities have been more 
successful than the purely secular associations, yet but 
few of them have become permanent organizations — at 
least as they were originally founded. Several of them 
have been reorganized into joint stock concerns, — and 
as such, are "capitalistic," and are, therefore, in oppo- 
sition to the fundamental idea of true Socialism. With 



98 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

one exception (the Oneida Community), all the sec- 
tarian associations (or, at any rate, all those of any 
prominence) are of alien origin. One of the first of 
these religious Communistic bodies to be founded in the 
United States was the "Shakers/' which has had a 
longer successful life, as a community, than any of its 
followers. Fundamental principles of the "Shakers" 
are : virgin purity, non-resistance, peace, equality in 
inheritance, and the non-marriage state, the married 
people being divorced, and the single remaining in that 
condition. The members of this singular community 
are called "Shakers" because of their violent contortions 
after the supposed reception of revelations from the 
spirit world. There are now some fifteen communities, 
scattered throughout nine States. They have the repu- 
tation of being very wealthy, they owning 100,000 acres 
of land; but for all that the "Shakers" are dying out. 
The principle of Communism is not general, it applying 
only to members of the family; and some families are 
wealthy, while others are poor. 

The Oneida Community was founded by John Hum- 
phrey Noyes, who was born in Vermont, in 181 1. Dur- 
ing the great revival of 183 1 he became "converted," 
and was ordained a minister of the Congregational 
Church ; but owing to his peculiar views on religion and 
on the relation between the sexes he was constrained 
to resign from the ministry; however, he still continued 
to preach. In 1834 he went to the residence of his 
parents, at Putney, Vt, where he started a community 
of followers of his extraordinary doctrines. Consider- 
ing his unorthodox views in regard to the sexes, it is 
astonishing that among the membership of the com- 
munity were his own mother, two of his sisters, and 



UTOPIANISM 99 

several others of his relatives. All the men of the com- 
munity were considered to be the "husbands" of all the 
female members; and, in turn, all the women were con- 
sidered to be the "wives" of all the male members — a 
combination of polygamy and polyandry. The men 
and women of the community cohabited promiscuously, 
but any man or woman had the right to decline any 
unwelcome "attention." It was a system of the "fre- 
est" kind of "free love." At first the organization was 
only a religious association, but very soon communism 
in goods was adopted; and then commonality as to 
women followed as a logical application of the Com- 
munistic doctrine. The followers of Noyes called them- 
selves "Perfectionists." They undertook to propagate 
children scientifically, and one way of doing this was 
for a young man to mate with a woman of mature 
years, and vice versa. As can be readily imagined, 
these practices caused intense local opposition; and on 
this account Noyes and his community moved in 1848 
to Oneida, Madison County, N. Y. After a time sev- 
eral other "Perfectionist" communities were established, 
but in 1857 Aey were all aggregated at Oneida and at 
Wallingford, Connecticut. The members of these com- 
munities were considerably above the average of like 
bodies in intelligence, social standing, and in the wealth 
which they contributed to the common fund; and they 
established a splendid reputation for their honesty and 
for the excellence of their farm and industrial products. 
Owing to the bitter opposition of the orthodox churches, 
the "Perfectionists" abandoned their system of "com- 
plex marriages" in 1879. This step, however, led to the 
dissolution of the community as such, and Noyes with 
a few adherents emigrated to Canada, where he died 



ioo WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

in 1886. In 1880 the remnants of the community were 
incorporated as a joint stock company, under the name 
of "Oneida Community, Limited," and it is understood 
that the assets of the concern amounted to the value of 
one million dollars. It is only fair to state that the 
members of Noyes' community denied the charge of 
lustful licentiousness, and they insisted that every one 
had to be "perfect" — that is, to be "free from sin," and 
to be "holy" — before being allowed to practice "liberty 
of love." 

The "Rappists" or "Harmonites" had a sort of dual 
foundership, there having been two different associa- 
tions bearing that name — one in Lycoming County, 
Pa., and the other on the River Wabash, Posey County, 
Ind. The first community — which was in Germany — 
was sectarian, the members being known as "Separat- 
ists" (because they separated from the orthodox 
churches), and its founder emigrated to America with 
a company of followers. After being for some time in 
Pennsylvania, the "Rappists" sold out and moved to 
Indiana, and took up 30,000 acres of land, they calling 
this settlement New Harmony. In 1824-5 Robert Owen, 
the British reformer, purchased their land, and with the 
proceeds the "Rappists" bought a property near Pitts- 
burg, Pa., to which they gave the name of Economy. 
They have dwindled down to a few old men, and the 
property of the community is vested in two trustees; 
and, in fact, the society is now a limited partnership, 
and employs a large number of wage earners. Owen's 
community had its separate career — and it was a very 
short one. 

After the "Rappists" left Germany they were fol- 
lowed by another company of the same sect, who formed 



UTOPIANISM ioi 

the "Zoar" colony in the Tuscarawas Valley, Ohio. In 
April, 1819, the "Zoarites" adopted articles of associa- 
tion by which all the property of the individual mem- 
bers, and their future earnings, should become common. 
But in October, 1898, the Communistic nature of the 
society was abolished by a distribution of the property 
heretofore held in common, the experiment being a self- 
confessed failure. 

There have been and are still a number of other sec- 
tarian and secular voluntary Communist associations in 
America, but the above are the most important. The 
following communities are still in existence after the 
period of years named when they were founded : The 
Ephrata Community, 178 years; the 15 Shaker Com- 
munities, 134 years; the Harmony Community, 67 
years; the Oneida Community (now a joint stock com- 
pany), 78 years. The entire movement has spent its 
force, however, and does not now attract any public 
attention. 



CHAPTER VI 
STATE AND MUNICIPAL SOCIALISM 

Bismarck and State Socialism. 

Socialists universally recognize Bismarck as their 
greatest antagonist in the active field of politics and 
state-craft. Yet it was no other than the great German 
Chancellor who in a famous speech made in the Reich- 
stag in 1882 said : 

Many measures which we have adopted to the great bless- 
ing of the country are Socialistic, and the State will have 
to accustom itself to a little more Socialism yet. . . . 
But if you believe that you can frighten any one or call up 
specters with the word "Socialism," you take a standpoint 
which I abandoned long ago, and the abandonment of which 
is absolutely necessary for our entire Imperial legislation. 

Nevertheless, Bismarck denied that he was a Socialist, 
as the term is generally understood; and during the 
period of his power he used the machinery of the State 
with great vigor to crush Socialism. It was State So- 
cialism which Bismarck introduced as a part of the per- 
manent Imperial policy; and his avowed object was to 
cause a cessation of the growing demand for Scientific, 
Revolutionary Socialism. Bismarck declared for "the 
right to work" — which is one of the principal of the 
"immediate demands" of the Socialists, the world over; 

102 



STATE AND MUNICIPAL SOCIALISM 103 

but in so doing he claimed that he was only standing 
on the old Prussian constitution, which dates in varying 
forms from 1671 to 1794, one of the clauses providing 
that the State must provide work for those of its citi- 
zens who could not procure subsistence for themselves. 
But Bismarck was mistaken in supposing that the estab- 
lishment of State Socialism would cause a diminution 
in the agitation for Marxian Socialism. No other coun- 
try has had State Socialism so extensively and scien- 
tifically engrafted on its constitution as Germany has, 
and in no other country is there such a wide-spread de- 
mand for extreme Revolutionary Socialism. 

In the popular mind the two systems are often con- 
founded, and it is undoubtedly sometimes difficult to 
draw a clear distinction as regards governmental action ; 
and in the opinion of many Socialists the main differ- 
ence is only that of intent. But, as a rule, Marxian 
Socialists are opposed — theoretically, at least — to State 
Socialism as a permanent system; in practice, however, 
they accept it as a means to an end — as a half-way house 
to the final goal, — to complete Collectivism ; and, indeed, 
State Socialism, to a greater or less extent, is included 
in the "immediate demands" of most Socialist organiza- 
tions throughout the world. 

German Workmen's Insurance and Old-Age Pensions. 
Of all forms of State Socialism the most important 
in any country is that of the insurance of the working 
men of Germany. The German Ambassador at Wash- 
ington, who is not given to much public speaking, has 
made several addresses in large American cities, exposi- 
tory and laudatory of the system. In Harper s Monthly, 
of October, 1909, Madge C. Jenison speaks of it as "the 



104 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

big fact in Germany." This writer goes on to say: 
"Six out of nine of all those who work for wages are 
sure by law of an income and doctor's care if they are 
ill; three out of four when they are old or unable to 
work; and every man, woman, and child, except in a 
few isolated classes of workers, in cases of accidents 
met with in their trades." Old age pensions now begin 
at 70 years, and the age may soon be reduced five years. 
The State insurance is for accident, sickness, old age, 
and invalidism. Indemnity for accidents is granted irre- 
spective of the culpability or innocence of either party. 
The pensions for accidents are maintained by employers 
alone, on the principle that "accidents are an inherent 
feature of industry and must be considered part of 
the cost of production;" and the accident pensions are 
paid by the trade associations of employers. The sick- 
ness and old-age insurance is borne by the employer 
and the employed together. Sickness insurance can be 
drawn for 26 weeks a year. Employers pay one-third 
of the premium for sickness, while each pays one-half 
for old-age and invalid pension — a much more com- 
mendable system than the scheme just introduced in 
England, where the State pays the entire amount of the 
old-age pension. The administration in Germany is 
conducted jointly by workmen and employers; and the 
contribution by the government about pays the cost of 
administration. 

State Socialism Defined. 

State Socialism can be defined as a system under 
which there is governmental action instead of private 
action in the ownership and operation of undertakings 
and the performance of certain functions for the gen- 



STATE AND MUNICIPAL SOCIALISM 105 

eral good. These undertakings may cover transporta- 
tion — the ownership and operation of canals, railroads, 
steamships, street cars, etc. ; and they may be of a com- 
merical or trading nature — supplying food, clothing, etc., 
or the providing of such public necessities and conve- 
niences as are generally classed as "public utilities" 
(telegraphs, telephones, water, gas, electricity, etc.). 
State Socialism also includes the performance of such 
functions as the free feeding of school children, the 
providing of free school books, old-age pensions, life, 
sick and accident insurance, etc. ; and "land nationaliza- 
tion," — or the State ownership and control of productive 
land (that is, land apart from parks, thoroughfares, 
etc.) — is classed as State Socialism. There is an ever- 
increasing application of State Socialism to the owner- 
ship and control of local "public utilities/' such as street 
cars, water, gas, electric lighting and power. This is 
generally called Municipal Socialism, or Municipal 
Trading; but as a matter of fact it is State Socialism 
in a municipal degree — State Socialism with a local ap- 
plication. Generally speaking, Municipal Socialism is 
confined to "public utilities," as above, which, by their 
very nature, are natural monopolies, or ought to be 
monopolies, for efficient and economical administration, 
whether owned publicly or by private corporations. 

There is a line drawn by some economists in this 
regard between objects fairly to be included within 
State Socialism and those outside its proper sphere : 
that is, it is held that the State should not undertake 
any enterprise which is "productive" (which brings in 
a revenue), unless it comes within the category of "pub- 
lic utilities," and is a natural monopoly; in other words, 
that the State or municipality should not enter into 



106 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

industrial and commercial undertakings except in special 
cases and for reasons which are overwhelming; — that 
the State or municipality shoiild not enter into commer- 
cial or industrial competition with its citizens. It is 
upon this line that the battle is now being fought in 
England and on the Continent, with the object of limit- 
ing the sphere of operations of State Socialism. 

State Socialism Through Taxing the Rich. 

Government intervention in social politics is not a 
new thing in England, and the doctrine of laissez faire 
was not even held rigidly by Adam Smith and the "Man- 
chester school." Until recently England was far behind 
some of the Continental countries in State Socialism, 
but she is fast catching up. The British Government 
owns the telegraph system; in the summer of 1909 it 
took over most of the Marconi wireless stations; and it 
now owns the telephone system ; there is an active agita- 
tion proceeding for the nationalization of the railroads 
and canals; and long before Henry George went to 
England there were several schemes advocated for the 
nationalization of land, one of them embodying a plan 
similar to George's "single tax" as a via media. Rae 
observes that "German Socialists direct their attack 
mainly on capital, but English socialism fastens very 
naturally on property in land, which in England is con- 
centrated into unnaturally few hands." But things have 
"moved" since Rae wrote that sentence. While the 
British Socialists attack private ownership in land just 
as strongly as ever they did, they have within the past 
ten years made a special attack on capital and "un- 
earned" wealth in all its shapes — and "unearned" 
wealth, in the philosophy of the present-day Socialists, 



STATE AND MUNICIPAL SOCIALISM 107 

is all wealth except the wages received by the working 
class. The British Socialists boldly proclaim that the 
rich should be compelled to provide for the necessities 
of the poor. 

British Old-Age Pension Scheme. 

On January 1, 1909, the British old-age pension 
scheme came, into operation. There was a consensus 
of opinion that some system of pensions should be pro- 
vided, the principal differences being as to whether they 
should be non-contributory or contributory (as in Ger- 
many, where, indeed, the employers and employees pay 
the full amount with the exception of the cost of admin- 
istration), and as to the cost and provision therefor, if 
the system was non-contributory. The system adopted 
is not considered a satisfactory solution of the dreadful 
problem of the indigent aged poor in the United King- 
dom. It is non-contributory, and there can be no reason- 
able doubt but that it will have a pauperizing effect on a 
large class of the population — this effect being not lim- 
ited to the recipients, but being felt generally, as it will 
strengthen and encourage the recent and widely-extend- 
ing feeling that the poor, and even the average working 
class, have a right to be provided for in their advanc- 
ing years, and that there is no necessity for the practice 
of thrift, economy, or self-help. Indeed, this doctrine 
is openly proclaimed by Socialists. The present age 
required to entitle anyone to a pension is 70 years, but 
the Trade Unionists and Socialists are already demand- 
ing that the limit be 65, 60 and even 50 years. The 
amount of the pension is graded down from five shill- 
ings to one shilling a week, according to the private 
income of the recipient. For instance, if he has an 



108 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

income of not more than eight shillings a week, he is 
entitled to a pension of five shillings a week; whereas, 
if he has an income up to twelve shillings a week, he is 
entitled to a pension of only one shilling a week; and 
if he has an income of over twelve shillings a week, 
he is not entitled to any pension. Voluntary provision 
for old age, through benefit societies, or Trade Unions, 
are not included in this disqualifying effect of private 
incomes. When the law was passed it was estimated by 
the government that £6,000,000 would be sufficient to 
meet these old-age pensions for a year; but it soon 
became evident that another million would have to be 
added; and the probabilities are that in a few years 
the old-age pension bill will amount to £10,000,000 or 
£12,000,000. The government is being continuously 
subjected to pressure from the Trade Unionists and the 
Socialists to reduce the age limit and to increase the 
weekly amount of the pension. While there is a gen- 
eral acceptance of the principle of old-age pensions on 
the part of the public, yet there is probably a majority 
sentiment against the non-contributory feature of the 
•system, and there is a demand that that be changed ; and 
there is a movement in favor of a contributory scheme 
for sick and accident insurance, similar to the German 
system. 

In the middle of December, 191 1, the British Parlia- 
ment passed the National Insurance Bill providing for 
compulsory insurance against sickness and unemploy- 
ment of the working classes. It is estimated that a capi- 
talization fund of $135,000,000 will be required. It will 
be contributed to by the employers, the employees and 
the government. For the first three months an allow- 



STATE AND MUNICIPAL SOCIALISM 109 

ance of $2.50 a week will be made, and half of that for 
the next three months. 



Where the Money Comes From. 

When the question is asked where the money to pay 
for the old-age pensions and the sick, unemployment 
and accident pensions, is to come from, the universal 
answer of the Labor-Socialists is that the State should 
provide the money, and that the State should get the 
money by taxing the rich. This doctrine is being openly 
advocated even to the point of confiscation of all wealth 
arising from rent, interest, or dividends. There are two 
methods of taxing the rich in Great Britain which here- 
tofore have seemed bottomless in their capacity for 
yielding to the demands of the government for money 
— one the taxation of incomes, and the other that of 
making the estates of deceased persons pay tribute to 
the State. The present British income tax is normally 
one shilling on the pound, except that it is only nine- 
pence on the whole or part thereof of an income less 
than £2,000 a year if the income be directly earned from 
a trade or profession (that is, not from dividends, etc.). 
Incomes not exceeding £160 a year are exempt from 
tax altogether, and there are abatements allowed up to 
incomes of £700. The whole theory of the British 
income tax system is to exempt the poor and even the 
average workingman, and to make the tax compara- 
tively light on those of moderate income, but to tax 
heavily the wealthy. For the year 1907-8 the income 
tax receipts amounted to the enormous sum of £32,380,- 
000. Another fat goose for the British government is 
the source of income known as the "death duties/' or 



no WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

taxation on inheritances. These duties are "progres- 
sive/' and sometimes they eat up the income of an estate 
for three or four years ; and in the meantime the incom- 
ing heir has to live in anticipation of the enjoyment of 
his fortune. The British Government is remorseless in 
collecting both the income tax and the death duties; 
and, speaking generally, there is no such thing as evad- 
ing these taxes. The British Government will even 
follow up, say an American who has temporarily resided 
in England, entered into a business there, received an 
income therefrom but has spent far more than his in- 
come in living expenses ; and then, when he has returned 
home to America to remain permanently, the tax col- 
lectors will pursue him to this country, with peremptory 
demands for payment of income tax for the fraction of 
the year he had resided in England after the last full 
year for which he had paid the tax. Not only that, but 
an alien, temporarily resident in England, is expected 
to pay income tax on his income from investments — 
even on interests on savings deposits — in his own coun- 
try; and the fact that his English enterprise is unprof- 
itable cuts no figure in the matter. The same general 
principle of making him "pay the piper" who has the 
money to pay, holds good with aliens who die in Eng- 
land and leave their estate to some one who is a resi- 
dent in that country. Notwithstanding the so-called 
free-trade system of England, it is a very expensive 
business for a wealthy foreigner to either live or die in 
that country. For the year 1907-8 the receipts from the 
"death duties" were £19,070,000 (about $95,000,000). 
Another source of income which falls mostly upon the 
property-owning class is that of the stamp and fee 
duties, — that is, the requirement that practically all legal 



STATE AND MUNICIPAL SOCIALISM in 

documents, all checks, all receipted bills over two 
pounds, etc., be stamped; and the receipts from these 
items amounted to nearly £9,000,000 (nearly $45,000,- 
000) in 1907-8. Then there are other taxes which fall 
almost entirely upon the well-to-do and the comfortably- 
off middle classes: — the house duty and the land tax, 
which together in 1907-8 footed up the neat little sum 
of £2,690,000. 

American State Socialism. 

While the doctrines of Revolutionary Socialism are 
undoubtedly spreading with enormous rapidity among 
the proletariat of the world, State Socialism is progress- 
ing very fast among the governments of the most pro- 
gressive nations, Municipal Socialism being included. 
In the United Kingdom the railroads are still privately 
owned, but there is a growing demand for their nation- 
alization. While there seems to be little sentiment in 
America, outside the avowed Socialists, in favor of the 
government ownership of railroads, yet in other direc- 
tions there has unquestionably been a recent letting- 
down of the bars of Individualism against State Social- 
ism. While bitterly decrying Revolutionary Socialism, 
Mr. Roosevelt was, while President, very much of a 
State Socialist, of the Bismarckian order, — probably 
unconsciously. The recent Congressional and Execu- 
tive action for the supervision of corporations, for the 
inspection of food products, and particularly the Act 
for the taxation of corporations, and the Resolution for 
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States 
so as to permit an income tax, are all to be properly 
classed as State Socialism. 

The last national platform of the Republican Party 



ii2 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

repudiated Socialism, yet it advocated postal savings 
banks — and they must be classed among State Socialist 
institutions. Replying to the protest of the American 
Bankers' Association against postal savings banks, the 
President of the United States, Mr. Taft, said in an 
address at the State Fair, Milwaukee, Wis., September 
17, 1909: 

I am not a paternalist and I am not a Socialist, and I am 
not in favor of having the government do anything that 
private citizens can do as well, or better. But there are con- 
ditions. 

We have passed beyond the tide of what they call the 
"laissez faire school," which believed that the government 
ought to do nothing but run the police force, and we recog- 
nize the necessity for the interference of the government 
because it has great capital and great resources behind it, 
and because, sometimes, it can stand the lack of an immediate 
return on capital, to help out. We did it in our Pacific roads. 
We have done it in a great many different ways, and in this 
particular savings bank business, the government is espe- 
cially fitted to do what no system of private bankers can do. 

This reads like an extract from Bismarck's speech 
in the Reichstag defending his scheme of Imperial State 
Socialism ! 

Some political economists class the protective tariff 
itself as a piece of State Socialism; however this may 
be, there can be no doubt that the grants for the im- 
provements of rivers and harbors, for irrigation, the use 
of national supplies for relief in great emergencies, and 
the Congressional distribution of seed to farmers, all 
come within the designation of State Socialism, although 
probably but few Americans think of them in that way. 
The proposed tax on corporations and personal incomes 
was denounced by some critics as being Socialistic, 



STATE AND MUNICIPAL SOCIALISM 113 

and yet the same people never think of so designating 
present activities of the State which are undoubtedly 
Socialistic; the difference is that in the latter case peo- 
ple have got accustomed to the thing, while in the for- 
mer case the novelty of the proposition presents it in a 
new and forbidding aspect. 

Competent authorities differ very much as to the 
merits of State ownership of railroads as compared with 
private ownership. To an impartial student and ob- 
server there does not seem much to choose between the 
best of both systems — say between the railroads of 
America and England as examples of private owner- 
ship, and those of Germany as examples of government 
ownership. There can be no doubt, however, that in 
all progressive countries except the United States, the 
doctrine that the State should own and operate the rail- 
roads in the same way as it does the public highways, 
is becoming the generally accepted one; but it is 
acknowledged that Canada's experiment with the Inter- 
Colonial Railroad has not been a brilliant success. State 
ownership and control are now the general European 
rule. But no European country has gone so far as New 
Zealand in this respect, as in other phases of State 
Socialism. In that paradise of Paternalism, workmen 
are carried free under certain circumstances, and the 
railroads are used to further education: children for 
primary schools are carried free, and the older children 
are given rates which enable them to ride 120 miles for 
from three to six cents. In England some Socialists 
are demanding not only free rides on railroads, but free 
ocean trips! Presumably they will all want to go first- 
class and to travel on the largest and fastest vessels! 

State ownership of railroads received a set-back by 



ii4 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

the announcement in November, 191 1, that the pur- 
chase and operation of the Western Railway of France 
by the Government had turned out disastrously, after 
an experiment of three years. The following remarka- 
ble statement is from the official organ of the Railway 
Workers' National Union: 

It is no secret to any one, not even to the minister of 
public works, that the advent of politics and politicians to the 
head of the system has brought about the lamentable condi- 
tion with which it now struggles. There is not even an em- 
ployee but believes, is convinced that with the present re- 
gime the system will be in a complete state of anarchy 
before two more years have gone. 

American labor organizations have recently com- 
menced to demand government old-age pensions. To a 
limited extent the situation is being met by the volun- 
tary granting of pensions by some of the large private 
corporations, particularly the railroads. On January 
1, 191 1, the United States Steel Corporation inaugu- 
rated a system of classified pensions to its employees, 
ranging from $12 to $100 a month. 

Municipal Socialism. 

If Germany leads the world (next to New Zealand) 
in State Socialism, England occupies the premier place 
in Municipal Socialism, or Municipal Trading, as it is 
officially called; although, to be accurate, Municipal 
Socialism is really nothing but localized State Social- 
ism. It is the extraordinary development of this form 
of State Socialism which has lately caused so much 
alarm in England. Even such a critic as Rae concedes 
that municipal ownership is the best of all forms of State 



STATE AND MUNICIPAL SOCIALISM 115 

Socialism, for the reason that it is constantly exposed 
to the watchfulness of the tax-payers ; but this consider- 
ation is negatived to a large extent by the notorious 
fact that as a rule it is those who pay the least taxes, 
individually and collectively, who are the loudest advo- 
cates of Municipal Socialism. 

There are two kinds of Municipal Socialism — repro- 
ductive and unproductive enterprises. The former are 
those which bring in a revenue (or are supposed to do 
so), such as waterworks, gasworks, electric lighting, 
street railways (tramways), markets, etc. From a Brit- 
ish Government report of 1903 it appears that all the 
municipal corporations of England and Wales, with the 
exception of 18 (299 out of 317), were carrying on one 
or more reproductive undertakings. The local Govern- 
ment Board Annual Report for 1906-7 shows that in 
1902-3 there were 1,339 municipal, county, and urban 
district authorities engaged in trading enterprises, and 
that the British municipalities had a total indebtedness 
of nearly £371,000,000 (over $1,805,000,000) ; and that 
in 1904-5 the indebtedness was £466,500,000 (about 
$2,270,000,000) — an increase of £95,500,000 (about 
$465,000,000) in two years ! In addition to the "public 
utilities/' as generally accepted in both England and 
America, the British municipalities have gone into such 
enterprises as telephone services, golf links, manufac- 
ture of paving-stones, electric fittings, milk depots, 
steamboats, motor busses, bathing machines, fire and 
accident insurance, concert rooms, Turkish baths, con- 
cert halls, gas stoves, and transportation of goods. Agi- 
tation is now proceeding for the municipalization of 
coal, bread, and the sale of intoxicating liquors; and 
there is also a movement to follow French, German and 



n6 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Belgium Socialism as to municipal pawn-shops. There 
was a semi-municipal steamboat service on the Clyde, 
which was a failure financially; and the steamboat serv- 
ice on the Thames, put in operation by the "Progres- 
sives" (really Fabian Socialists), not only was run at a 
working loss amounting to £130,000 (about $584,000) 
in three years, but it became a "laughing-stock," and it 
was definitely abandoned in 1908 after the anti-Social- 
ists had swept the "Progressives" out of office in one 
of the most remarkable reversions of political popular- 
ity ever seen in England. In 1889-90 the annual local 
expenditures of the British municipalities were £67,000,- 
000 (over $330,000,000) ; in 1904-5 they were £163,000,- 
000 (nearly $800,000,000) — an advance of nearly one 
hundred millions sterling per annum in fifteen years! 
The English municipalities have very extensive home- 
rule powers under the Act of 1888, and the London 
County Council have almost the powers of a Continental 
principality. Still the Labor-Socialists are not satisfied, 
but are clamoring for more authority, and to be prac- 
tically free from any supervision or restraining checks 
by a central authority, particularly as to the expenditure 
of money. . This movement is being backed by all the 
subtle "permeation" tactics of the Fabians, who were 
from the first quick to realize that the road to Socialist 
national control was by and through the municipalities. 

A Costly Experiment. 

When criticism is made of the tremendous expense 
of the present rage for municipalization of almost every- 
thing, the British Socialists exclaim with fine contempt 
" the expense !" And they point to the "repro- 
ductive" enterprises as offsetting the indebtedness to 



STATE AND MUNICIPAL SOCIALISM 117 

some extent. A close examination of the reports show, 
however, that only a very small amount is set aside for 
depreciation. For instance, the Government Return of 
1903 shows that only £193,274 (a little over $940,000) 
is annually set aside for depreciation on over i 12 1,000,- 
000 (nearly $590,000,000), which is equal to only 3s. 
2d. per cent.; and of this vast capital £103,000,000 are 
in water works, gas works, electricity supply, and trams 
(street railroads), undertakings which require a large 
amount to be set aside for depreciation. It so happened 
that the successful "permeation" of the municipalities 
with recklessly extravagant Socialism by the Fabians 
was contemporaneous with the period of the early devel- 
opment of the application of electricity as a motive 
power and for lighting purposes. Under the advancing 
threat of public ownership, the private tram companies 
and gas companies refrained from spending money to 
keep their plants up with the times; so that after the 
municipalities had taken over these properties they 
started with brand new rolling-stock and plants; and 
now the Socialists triumphantly point to the difference 
between the old and the new services as demonstrating 
the superiority of public over private ownership. But 
the youthfulness is rapidly being displaced by mature 
age in municipal enterprises; the rolling-stock and 
plants as a rule have not been kept up in proper repair, 
and they are rapidly depreciating. In the meantime, the 
British municipally-owned enterprises are not "keep- 
ing up with the procession," at least from an American 
standpoint; and in a quarter of a century — unless there 
be a great change in methods — the British municipali- 
ties will be owning a conglomeration of rolling-stock 
and plant which would have been sent to the "scrap- 



n8 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

heap" years before in America. It might be said that 
this is looking far ahead; just so; but even taking the 
British tramway enterprises at their best, when new, 
they do not compare more than fairly with the best of 
American privately-owned street railroad systems. A 
favorite method of comparison of advocates of munici- 
pal ownership is to compare one of these new and best 
of the British examples of municipal ownership with 
one of the worst in America of the privately owned — 
one operated under an old-style "graft" monopolistic 
charter, without proper preservation of the rights of the 
public and without the company having been required 
to pay for their valuable privilege. But with all the 
faults of American legislatures and American munici- 
palities, it can be said that street railroad franchises 
granted now-a-days generally conserve the public and 
municipal rights. Furthermore, it can with confidence 
be asserted that there are privately-owned street car 
systems in America, operating under these carefully 
framed and honest franchises, which give far better and 
cheaper services than any of the best of the municipally- 
owned tram-way systems of Great Britain do, not 
excepting the much-vaunted systems of Liverpool and 
Glasgow. In an American city one can travel twice as 
far for five cents, or even on the basis of seven tickets 
for twenty-five cents, as can be travelled in a British 
municipally-owned tram for three pence (six cents) ; 
for the British system does not include "transfers ;" and 
then, even on the "straight" fares it costs more to ride 
say three miles in England than it does the same dis- 
tance in America. The only advantage the British sys- 
tem has is in short distances. But the American sys- 
tem has the overwhelming advantage in that it relieves 



STATE AND MUNICIPAL SOCIALISM 119 

the congestion in the residence districts, and enables — 
and indeed induces — workingmen to live in the better 
air and surroundings of the country. This brings up 
another disadvantage of the British municipal system, 
as compared with the American privately-owned sys- 
tem — and that is as to "inter-urban" electric roads. In 
England the municipal cars stop, as a rule, at the muni- 
cipal boundary, and it is a matter of much red-tape and 
of complicated arrangements for the tram system to be 
extended beyond the confines of the municipality; and 
when this is done, the expense to the passenger is at 
least twice as much as it is in America. In Great Brit- 
ain, it must be said, the management is honest, and 
fairly efficient, but that is characteristic of British mu- 
nicipal life, not only in "trading" matters, but generally 
speaking. And, it is satisfactory to observe, conditions 
in this respect are improving in America. 

The government of the Czar is not often associated 
with Socialism except as an autocracy always in battle 
array against the hosts of Democracy. But it seems 
that under a peculiar system in that unfortunate coun- 
try, there is an extensive Municipal Socialism prevailing 
(although not known by that name officially), as there 
is Socialism in land ownership. A writer in the Fort- 
nightly Review (London), January, 1903, says: 

... In Russia everything, from the bakery to the pub- 
lishing trade, has been municipalized. The State is content 
with carrying on the transport of the Empire, working mines, 
mismanaging steel works, and selling vodka, but the local 
governments admit no limit to their enterprise at all. The 
"Duma" and the "Zemstvo" sell agricultural machinery, seed, 
horses, cattle, sewing machines, text-books, medicines, and 
magic lanterns ; they manage theatres, deliver lectures, trans- 
late Milton and Moliere, and expurgate Dostoyeffsky for the 



120 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

benefit of the masses. While the City of London is won- 
dering whether it will ever own its tramways, the City of 
Tiflis competes with the retail butchers, and sells sewing 
machines on the instalment system to impecunious semp- 
stresses. 

An American Consular report says that the govern- 
ment of St. Petersburg has started a municipal pharm- 
acy, owing to the high price of medicines. The various 
disinfection and sanitary departments - will be supplied, 
and to private persons drugs will be sold at 20% dis- 
count against the normal charges. 



CHAPTER VII 

CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM 

Christian Socialism is, in a special sense, the interpre- 
tation of Collectivism according to Christian principles; 
and, in a general sense is the application of Christian- 
ity to the entire range of Sociology. It would seem as 
though the term is a misnomer if strict Marxism be 
taken as the standard of Socialism; nevertheless, there 
are those who insist that true philosophic Scientific 
Socialism is compatible with Christian ethics, they plead- 
ing that the extreme views of Marx, Engels, Bebel, Bax, 
and others, are not necessarily a part of Modern Social- 
ism. But it is incontrovertible that the majority of the 
recognized leaders of the Collectivist movement the 
world over decline to recognize so-called Christian So- 
cialism except as an expression of discontent with exist- 
ing economic and social conditions. 

The Churches and Christian Socialism. 

The Christian churches as organizations (with on£ 
notable exception — the Roman Catholic) have main- 
tained a neutral attitude with regard to Scientific Social- 
ism, although sometimes church conferences have given 
utterance to sentiments tinged with Socialism, and indi- 
vidual members of churches belong to Socialist organi- 
zations, both secular and religious, without denomina- 

121 



122 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

tional interference. What is sometimes spoken of as 
Catholic Christian Socialism is not the Modern Scientific 
Socialism ; and the same may be said of several Protest- 
ant organizations. 

Modern Christian Socialism as generally understood 
— that is, that which involves an acceptance of the prin- 
ciple of Collectivism — is a Protestant movement, not 
doctrinally, but in the sense that its activities, in an 
organized form, are practically confined to the Protest- 
ant denominations — especially in America and England. 
It is a singular fact, however, that Christian Socialism 
has had its greatest development in that communion 
which has been, in the minds of its critics, historically 
associated with caste and privilege — the Established 
Church of England. Likewise, in the United States, 
organized Christian Socialism has been mostly in that 
body which is the daughter of the Church of England, 
and still holds communion with her — the Protestant 
Episcopal Church, notwithstanding that this denomina- 
tion is often slightingly referred to as the church of the 
wealthier classes. Another peculiar fact is that while 
the Roman Catholic hierarchy is as a rule absolutely 
opposed to Scientific Socialism, and while its special 
doctrines have been condemned by the Papacy (at least 
by implication), yet the school of theology in the Angli- 
can Church which approximates the most closely to the 
Roman Catholic Church, is the one which is distin- 
guished by the number of its priests who are avowed 
Socialists — the Ritualist or "High Church" party. For 
a period, Christian Socialism, as an organized force, 
was practically limited in England to members of the 
Anglican Church ; but in recent years it has passed over 
that limitation; and now some of the most prominent 



CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM 123 

"Nonconformists" in England, and some of the leading 
lights in the "Evangelical" churches in America (both 
lay and clerical), are avowed Socialists, although prob- 
ably most of them have certain reservations. 

The Movement in England. 

The rise of modern Christian Socialism may be said 
to date from the "Chartist" days of 1848 — "that awful 
year," as Maurice once called it. The "Chartists" were 
those who demanded electoral reform as to the British 
Parliament. A monster petition was drawn up, said 
to have been signed by 5,000,000 persons [this was an 
exaggeration], which was to be presented to Parliament. 
The authorities feared trouble, and troops were placed 
under orders, they being commanded by the Duke of 
Wellington. Charles Kingsley, the famous author and 
preacher, was in sympathy with the movement, but he 
was extremely anxious to prevent bloodshed. So he 
wrote a placard addressed to the "Workmen of Eng- 
land," which was an eloquent and noble appeal to the 
good sense of the proletariat not to confound "liberty" 
with "license." Maurice and Kingsley were the 
founders of the modern Christian Socialist movement — 
at least in England and America. 

The English Christian Socialists interested themselves 
in Co-operation, but their plan went further than did 
that of the "Rochdale Pioneers." The association of 
the Christian Socialists was composed of producers, of 
workmen who became their own employers, who dis- 
tributed profits in proportion to the labor of each mem- 
ber of the society. In 1850 the first Christian Social- 
ist Co-operative Society was formed. At a meeting of 
journeymen tailors it was resolved that "individual self- 



124 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

ishness, as embodied in the competitive system, lies at 
the root of the evils under which English industry now 
suffers ; that the remedy for the evils of competition lies 
in the brotherly and Christian principle of Co-operation 
— that is, of joint work, with shared or common profits ; 
and that this principle might be widely and readily 
applied in the formation of Tailors' Working Associa- 
tions." Afterwards there was formed the "Society for 
Promoting Workingmen's Associations/' and in all, 
twelve of these industrial associations were formed. 
The movement was, however, a failure. There was a 
lack of "directive ability" — and then, there was a neg- 
lect to recognize modern conditions of Industrialism. 
This criticism of the experiment has been confirmed by 
subsequent experience, viz., that except in certain 
specialties of craftsmanship, Co-operation is of very 
doubtful success in industrial production, although there 
are many examples (particularly in England) of suc- 
cessful co-operative associations for distribution. 

The most noted institution which has sprung from 
Christian Socialism is the Workingmen's College, of 
London, which originated from the Bible Class of Mau- 
rice and Kingsley. The Workingmen's College was 
opened in 1854, with Maurice as President, and it is 
still in existence, but it has not run altogether smoothly. 
Among the famous past teachers have been: Prof. J. 
R. Seeley, Frederic Harrison (the well-known Positiv- 
ist), Dante Gabriel Rossetti, Ruskin, Huxley, and Tyn- 
dal. When Maurice died in 1870 he was succeeded as 
President by Thomas Hughes, the author of the immor- 
tal Tom Brown's School-days. In 1870 "Tom" Hughes 
visited the United States, and the "New Rugby" in 
Tennessee was formed, but it was not successful. 



CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM 125 

After the failure, in 1854, of the Christian Socialist 
co-operative experiments, the movement flowed in two 
separate streams for a time; one branch was identified 
with the Labor agitation, and the other was associated 
with theology. But afterwards these two currents 
joined in a new — and the latest — development of Chris- 
tian Socialism in England, the Christian Social Union, 
which was formed in 1889, "for the study and advocacy 
of Christian social principles." There are branches in 
all the large cities of England. The principles are of 
such a broad nature that almost any Christian who 
believes that the present social system needs reforma- 
tion, and that the application of Christian ethics is nec- 
essary for its reformation, is eligible for membership. 
It has affiliated societies in the United States, Australia 
and New Zealand. The Union is very influential in the 
Anglican communion. 

In England there are a number of individual religious 
societies of differing degrees of Socialism, one of the 
most prominent being known as the Guild of St. Mat- 
thew, the special aim of which is to win back the work- 
ingmen to the churches. The Guild of St. Matthew has 
made some very radical pronouncements, and probably 
a large part of its membership are evolutionary Social- 
ists in an economic sense, except that they believe in the 
interposition of Divine Providence in human affairs, 
which is practically denied by the genuine Marxists, or 
materialistic Scientific Socialists. Even in the days of 
Maurice and Kingsley it was very difficult to define 
Christian Socialism as compared with the purely secular 
Socialism of the orthodox followers of Marx and 
Engels, and that difficulty has increased. 



126 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

The Christian Socialist (Chicago), of September i, 
1908, said: 

As a proof of how extensive and firmly Socialism is taking 
hold of the Church and becoming the hope of God's king- 
dom on earth, we cite the fact that among the many Social- 
ist preachers of London are included the very chief preachers 
of the four principal denominations — Henry Scott Holland of 
the Church of England, canon of the world-famous St. Paul's 
Cathedral and editor of the Commonwealth; Rev. J. E. 
Rattenbury of the Wesleyan Church, pastor of the celebrated 
West London Mission, probably the greatest Methodist 
Church in London, where the noted Hugh Price Hughes 
preached for many years; Rev. R. J. Campbell, Congrega- 
tionalism editor of the Christian Commonwealth, the most 
prominent non-conformist preacher in England, who has 
made the pulpit of Joseph Parker at City Temple, London, 
still more famous, and Rev. John Clifford, whose name is 
honored by the Baptists all over the world. Than these four 
there are no names more honored in their respective de- 
nominations, yet they are all outspoken Socialists, declaring 
Socialism to be the coming of the Kingdom of God on 
earth. 

. . . In England the Church Socialist League, composed 
chiefly of priests and laymen of the High Church section of 
the Church of England, has enrolled hundreds of priests and 
is exerting a tremendous influence for Socialism. 

. . . Over two hundred American ministers in charge of 
various churches have signed their names to a manifesto 
issued by the General Secretary of the Christian Socialist 
Fellowship, pledging themselves to Socialism — the industrial 
and political revolution proclaimed by the constructive So- 
cialists of all countries — as the political expression of the 
Kingdom of God as foretold in both the Old and New 
Testaments. 

In March, 1909, there was formed at Swansea, Wales, 
the Free Church [Nonconformist] Socialist League, and 
seventy-three ministers immediately joined. 



CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM 127 

American Christian Socialism. 

Christian Socialism in the United States must be 
considered apart from sectarian Utopian Socialism. It 
did not make its appearance in America, as an organ- 
ized force, until some time after it had become estab- 
lished on the Continent and in England. For a while 
the movement lagged, but within recent years it has 
shown extension and virility. As in Europe, Christian 
Socialism is to a great extent very vague, some of its 
professors being opposed to orthodox constructive Sci- 
entific Socialism in certain of its phases. It may be said 
that on the part of all Christian Socialists in America, 
as in Europe, there is some difficulty experienced in 
apologizing for and explaining the starkly atheistic and 
grossly materialistic utterances of many leading repre- 
sentative Socialists, especially those of the early days 
on the Continent. The Chicago Christian Socialist, of 
March 1, 1909, in some comments on an address by the 
Right Reverend P. J. Donahue, the Roman Catholic 
Bishop of Wheeling, W. Va., opposing Socialism on 
the ground of its alleged irreligion and immorality, says 
— and these comments may be accepted as a good sum- 
mary of the general sentiments of Christian Socialists : 

No one more than ourselves deplores the fact that the 
earliest Socialist writers, stung to fiery resentment because 
the Catholic and Protestant churches of Europe were ar- 
rayed on the side of Mammon, flaunted their atheistic ideas 
before the world and thus raised the greatest barrier against 
Socialism, placed in our opposers' hands their deadliest 
weapon, and furnished them their most convenient subter- 
fuge behind which to evade the real Socialist issue — the 
economic revolution. Socialism has the whole world at its 
feet studying economics. Our economic proposition is in- 
vincible. It is winning its way everywhere, and it will win 



128 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

in spite of the atheistic and free-love follies of certain So- 
cialist writers ; but on account of their folly we will have all 
the greater difficulty in winning our first national victories. 
. . . We are Socialists for economic, not theological rea- 
sons. 

Socialism, in its Christian manifestation, was pre- 
sented to the American people as early as 1849, when 
Henry James, Sr., in a lecture at Boston, made the 
claim that Socialism was identical with Christianity. 

In 1872 a Christian Labor Union was organized. 

In 1874-5 a paper called Equity, an exponent of 
Christian Socialism, was published in Boston. 

On April 15, 1899, there was founded at Boston the 
Society of Christian Socialists, the Rev. Dr. Bliss, the 
editor of The Encyclopedia of Social Reform, being one 
of the promoters. This was the first organization of 
Christian Socialists in America, properly speaking, and 
it disbanded after a few years. 

In 1891 there was established the Christian Social 
Union, on the basis of the English organization of that 
name. It was an organization of the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church, and at the head of the movement were 
Bishop Huntington, the Rev. Dr. Holland, Prof. R. T. 
Ely, and Dr. Bliss. This organization has not grown, 
although it still exists; but there is another Episcopal 
Christian Socialist organization which has shown more 
vitality — the Church Association for the Advancement 
of the Interests of Labor, which is more radical than 
the Social Union, although its principles are not social- 
istic economically. It is a pioneer in seeking to settle 
industrial controversies by arbitration, and in the move- 
ment against "sweating." 

The Baptists, in 1893, established the Brotherhood 



CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM 129 

of the Kingdom, an undenominational society. One of 
the leading ministers of the Baptist Church was until 
recently the pastor of the famous Fifth Avenue Church, 
New York, the Rev. Mr. Aked (now in California), 
who came from Liverpool, England, where he was con- 
sidered rather an extreme Socialist for a minister of 
the Gospel. When Mr. Aked first came to America 
there was considerable curiosity expressed as to whether 
his environments as the minister in "Rockefeller's 
Church" (as it is called, from the fact that the multi- 
millionaire worships there) would have the effect of 
toning down his radicalism ; but to the great satisfaction 
(and not a little to their surprise) of the Socialists, the 
reverend gentleman is still "sound and true." 

The American Institute of Christian Sociology was 
organized in 1894 by Prof. R. T. Ely (of the Univer- 
sity of Wisconsin), Prof. George Davis Herron (at 
that time holding the chair of Applied Christianity at 
Iowa College), and Prof. John Rogers Commons (of 
Wisconsin University). Prof. Ely was President of 
the Institute, Prof. Herron was Principal of Instruction, 
and Prof. Commons was Secretary; and they were a 
very able trio. Prof. Ely is one of the leading econo- 
mists and reformers in America. He denies being a 
Socialist, but he is against monopolies, is in favor of 
the public ownership of "natural monopolies," and is a 
steadfast friend of the trade union movement. Prof. 
Commons holds views similar to those of Prof. Ely. 
When Prof. Herron was appointed to the chair of 
Applied Christianity at Iowa College, he was an intense 
Christian Socialist, but he grew more radical, and in 
1900 he resigned his chair and renounced belief in 
Christianity as a distinctive religion. His old friends, 



130 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

and religious circles generally, were shocked at his sepa- 
ration from his family, and at his socialistic wedding — 
or "annunciation," as it was called — to a young woman. 
Since then he has resided in Italy, and his connection 
with the Socialistic Party has been as a writer and lec- 
turer. 

The National Christian Socialist League (or Fellow- 
ship) was established at Louisville, Ky., in 1906, its 
object being thus stated : 

To permeate churches, denominations, and other religious 
institutions with the social message of Jesus; to show that 
Socialism is the necessary economic expression of the Chris- 
tian life; to end the class struggle by establishing industrial 
democracy, and to hasten the reign of justice and brother- 
hood upon earth. 

Continental Christian Socialism. 

On the Continent there is a distinct cleavage between 
Christian Socialism and secular Socialism. So-called 
Christian Socialism itself, on the Continent, is divided 
into two camps — Roman Catholic and Protestant. The 
first is, necessarily, as an organization, controlled by the 
church; and also, necessarily, its aims are in harmony 
with the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, as 
expounded from time to time by the Vatican. Protest- 
ant Christian Socialism is naturally looser in organiza- 
tion and more indefinite and multiform in its objects. 
Speaking generally, both may be said to have similar 
aims — the application of Christian principles to social 
reformation. Both, also, are actuated by the desire to 
hold within its folds those of its adherents who are 
inclined to Socialism. The Scientific- Socialists — or 
Social Democrats, to use a general term — are opposed 



CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM 131 

to both Roman Catholic and Protestant forms of Chris- 
tian Socialism, and they either ignore them or actually 
oppose them. 

In this respect there is a marked difference between 
Continental and British Socialism. In Great Britain 
the lines as to orthodox Scientific Socialism are not so 
sharply drawn as is the case on the Continent. There 
is more "fluidity," as it were. In Great Britain the 
word "Socialist" has a very indefinite meaning com- 
pared to what it has in Germany, France and Belgium. 
In Great Britain there are Scientific Socialists who are 
professors of orthodox Christianity ; and there are mem- 
bers of Christian Socialist organizations who are in 
full sympathy and in active co-operation with the secu- 
lar Labor-Socialist party. In that country there is a 
fading of one school of thought into another until the 
line of separation becomes almost imperceptible. To a 
certain extent there is the same characteristic in Amer- 
ica; but there has not been the same development of 
Christian Socialism as in England. 

It is to be observed, also, that, as yet, the Roman 
Catholic Church has not thought it necessary to utilize 
its tremendous social and organizing energies in Eng- 
land and America as it has on the Continent with 
the special view of counteracting secular Socialism; but 
within recent years there has been a tendency in this 
direction. So far as the popular vague conception of 
Socialism is concerned (which is not an accurate one), 
there is no special antagonism in England and America 
between it and the Roman Catholic Church; but there 
is no misapprehension on the part either of the intel- 
lectual leaders of Scientific Socialism or of the authori- 
ties of the Church; and each side understands that 



132 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

there is an irreconcilable antagonism between them. 
The Roman Catholic Church draws a sharp line be- 
tween Social Reform and Modern Socialism. 

The great figure standing out in German Christian 
Socialism is Bishop Von Ketteler, who was born in 
1811 and died in 1877. He was the founder of so-called 
Catholic Christian Socialism in Germany. He has been 
likened to Charles Kingsley, of England, and, like the 
latter, he strongly advocated industrial Co-operation. 
"May God in His goodness," said he, "bring all good 
Catholics to adopt this idea of co-operative associations 
of production upon the basis of Christianity." It should 
be said that Catholic authorities strenuously deny that 
Bishop Von Ketteler was a real Socialist. In 1868 there 
was organized the Christian Social Workingman's Asso- 
ciation; and in 1870, the Catholic Journeymen's Club 
(organized in 1847) joined the Christian Socialist 
movement. These clubs are controlled by the Church, 
and are therefore opposed by the Marxist Socialists; 
they have grown very strong, and have been the politi- 
cal right arm of the Church in Germany. 

The German Protestant Christian Socialist movement 
dates from 1838, a movement being then started by Victor 
Aime, who shares with the good Bishop Von Ketteler 
the honor of being called the "father" of German Chris- 
tian Socialism — only one was a Protestant while the 
other was a Roman Catholic. But the real Protestant 
Christian Socialist movement was begun in 1878 by 
Pastor Todt, whose efforts were ably backed up by the 
Court Chaplain, Dr. Stocker. This movement is closely 
allied to Bismarckian State Socialism, and is really in 
defence of Church and State principles — something like 
the movement of the "Tory Democrats" of England. 



CHRISTIAN SOCIALISM 133 

The Social Democrats call the movement mucker-Social- 
ismus — "sham Socialism." It is now nothing practically 
but a confederation of organizations for church and 
philanthropic work. 

To be historically accurate, it should be said that 
France, and not England, is the birthplace of Christian 
Socialism. The first Socialist paper ever published was 
Bouche de Fer ("The Iron Tongue"). It was a Chris- 
tian Communist paper, founded by Claude Fauchet, who 
in 1790 advocated a radical Christian Communism. 
There was Saint-Simon, who endeavored to found a 
new Christianity, in which Socialism should be a fea- 
ture. Then there was Abbe de Lamennais, who, in 
1830, founded the journal UAvenir, with the motto, 
"God and Liberty, the Pope and the People." This 
paper was condemned by the Vatican, and Lamennais 
left the Church of Rome, but always advocated the alli- 
ance of religion and Socialism. After his break with 
the Papacy he published Les Paroles d'un Croyant 
("The Words of a Believer"), which Dr. Bliss says "are 
among the noblest and most burning Christian Socialist 
utterances ever made." Cabet, the founder of Icarian- 
ism, held that Christianity is Communism. 

In France, as in Germany, there is a distinctive Ro- 
man Catholic Christian Socialist movement. Soon after 
the Franco-German war the Comte de Mun and the 
Comte de la Tour-du-Pin Chambly founded an associa- 
tion for the purpose of applying Christianity to indus- 
trialism. This movement was bitterly hostile to Protest- 
antism, holding it responsible for the misfortunes which 
had overtaken France ; and as an antidote to Protestant- 
ism and economic Individualism it was intended to 
establish state-aided Co-operation under the patronage 



134 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

of the Roman Catholic Church. As an economic success 
the movement has not been conspicuous, and the same 
may be said of the attempt to establish Protestant Chris- 
tian Socialism in France. 

In Belgium the Roman Catholic Church has many 
organizations for workingmen, and, as in Germany, 
they have been a tower of strength to the church. Prof. 
Frangois Huet (born 1814) was the great Belgium 
Apostle of Christian Socialism. A follower, Prof. De 
Laveleye, says of Huet : "He was too full of Chris- 
tianity for the Socialists, and too full of Socialism for 
the Christians/' The same enthusiast makes this state- 
ment : "Every Christian who understands and earnestly 
accepts the teachings of His Master is at heart a Social- 
ist; and every Socialist, whatever may be his hatred 
against all religion, bears within himself an unconscious 
Christianity. 1 " The same sentiments were recently 
expressed by an English Christian Socialist in an eulogy 
on a noted London Socialist who is an avowed atheist, 
and who himself contends that Socialism is incompati- 
ble with Christianity. 



CHAPTER VIII 

MARXIAN SOCIALISM 

Now-a-days, when the word "Socialism" is used, that 
school known as Marxian is meant, unless there is a 
specification otherwise. As Prof. Thorstein Veblin says 
(Quarterly Journal of Economics) : "No one is seri- 
ously apprehensive of any other so-called Socialistic 
movement, and no one is seriously concerned to criticise 
or refute the doctrines set forth by any other school 
of 'Socialists.' " 

The Fundamentals. 

While there is much difference among the exponents 
and critics as to the details of Marxian Socialism (called 
also Modern, Scientific, and Revolutionary), there is 
general agreement as to what constitute its funda- 
mental bases as a system, viz.: (i) the doctrine of the 
"economic" or "materialistic conception of history;" and 
(2) the theory of "surplus value." Engels generously 
gives all the credit to his friend Marx for "these two 
great discoveries," with which, he claims, "Socialism 
became a science." Yet, what is now accepted in a 
general way as Marxian Socialism has been considera- 
bly modified within recent years ; and there are impor- 
tant differences among even professed orthodox Scien- 
tific Socialists in regard to what were formerly consid- 

135 



136 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

ered essentials. In fact, there are now but few of the 
recognized intellectual leaders who hold the original 
Marxian faith in its fullness. Even Bebel, the leader of 
the German Socialists in the Reichstag, has admitted 
from his seat that his views have been both modified 
and developed, and that his party is "continually moult- 
ing." It is only the uninformed or hidebound fanatical 
Socialist who now looks upon Marx as the Pope of 
Economics. In 1848 Marx and Engels jointly issued 
the Communist Manifesto— a call to the workingmen 
of all nations to unite under the red banner of Social- 
ism. [In that day Socialism as now understood was 
known by the name of Communism.] The Communist 
Manifesto contained a statement of the principles of 
Modern Socialism as elaborated afterward by Marx 
in his stupendous work, Das Capital (or Capital, as now 
generally given in America and England). In that his- 
toric document was stated the "fundamental proposi- 
tion" or "nucleus" of Socialism; and Engels says that 
this "belongs to Marx." In an introduction to the 
Manifesto Engels thus presents Marx's "fundamental 
proposition" : 

That in every historical epoch, the prevailing mode of 
economic production and exchange, and the social organiza- 
tion necessarily following from it, form the basis upon which 
is built up, and from which alone can be explained, the 
political and intellectual history of that epoch; that conse- 
quently the whole history of mankind (since the dissolution 
of primitive tribal society, holding land in common owner- 
ship) has been a history of class struggles, contests between 
exploiting and exploited, ruling and oppressed classes; that 
the history of these class struggles forms a series of evolu- 
tion in which, now-a-days, a stage has been reached where the 
exploited and oppressed class — the proletariat — cannot attain 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 137 

its emancipation from the sway of the exploiting and ruling 
class — the bourgeoisie — without, at the same time, and once 
and for all, emancipating society at large from all exploita- 
tion, oppression, class distinction and class struggles. 

In the opinion of Engels, this proposition was "des- 
tined to do for history what Darwin's theory has done 
for biology." 

Marx's "Capital." 

This evolutionary theory, as applied to labor and 
production, is what Socialists call the "economic" or 
"materialistic conception of history," and sometimes 
"economic determinism." In Capital Marx presents this 
theory most elaborately — and, as his admirers claim, to 
a mathematical demonstration; and, as a matter of fact, 
much of Marx's argument is in mathematical form. It 
may be said at the outset that most of the recognized 
political economists differ radically from Marx in his 
theory of Capital and Labor ; but there is a general con- 
cession that in producing his marvellous work Marx 
has earned a leading place among economists. Capital 
is sometimes styled "the Bible of Socialism;" and some 
enthusiasts are extravagant in their attributes to Marx. 
For instance, Spargo (an English- American ex-minis- 
ter), in The Spiritual Significance of Modern Socialism, 
speaks of "great men, such world-figures as Jesus, Sa- 
vanarola, Luther, Lincoln, and Marx." 

What is specifically known as Marxian Socialism is 
the system expounded primarily in the Communist 
Manifesto and afterwards elaborated in Capital; but 
the system also includes expositions by Marx in miscel- 
laneous writings; and in a general way Marxian So- 
cialism embraces propositions and views set forth by 



138 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

such authorities as Engels, Liebknecht, Bebel, and Kaut- 
sky among the Germans; by Gronlund, Spargo, Hill- 
quit, and Walling among American Socialists; and by 
Morris, Bax and Hyndman, among English Socialists. 
As a matter of fact, however, there is much difficulty in 
defining exactly what Marxian Socialism really is, 
largely because there is so much ambiguity and deep 
profundity in Marx's Capital itself. Primarily, this 
work is a criticism of modern Capitalism, and it is only 
indirectly an exposition of Socialism as a theory or 
system. Admittedly, there is no other production in the 
whole range of economic literature so difficult for even 
expert and informed students to fully comprehend as 
Capital; and to the average reader much of it is as puz- 
zling as a problem in algebra. Furthermore, the entire 
work of Capital has not been available to the vast ma- 
jority of even the most enthusiastic admirers of Marx — 
at least, in America and England. 

Marx died in 1883. Up to that time only one volume 
of Capital had been published (it being in German), 
and the first edition of that volume to appear in English 
was in 1886, it being a translation of the third German 
edition as a basis — that edition having been prepared 
the year Marx died, with the assistance of notes left by 
the author. The first English edition of the first volume 
was edited by Engels, the translation being by an old 
English friend of Marx and Engels, with the assistance 
of Marx's daughter and her husband, Dr. Aveling, who 
became one of the leading Socialists in Europe. Marx 
had planned a translation of the first valume in 1876 in 
America, but the project was abandoned chiefly because 
of the lack of a fit translator. When Marx died he left 
his unpublished notes to Engels, who issued in German 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 139 

the second and third volumes ; then he died, in London, 
as had Marx; and the two greatest of all Modern So- 
cialists, literary partners and the warmest of friends, 
lie buried in that city. Until quite recently, only the 
first two volumes have been available in English; but 
the third volume has recently been published in that 
language, it being part of an American publication 
edited by a well-known admirer of Marx and Engels, 
Ernest Untermann. In his preface that gentleman de- 
clares that "as a matter of fact, a large portion of the 
contents of Capital is as much a creation of Engels as 
though he had written it independently of Marx/' But 
even the third volume does not exhaust the "raw mate- 
rial" left in the form of rough notes by Marx to his lit- 
erary executor, Engels. Mr. Untermann says that some 
years previous to Engel's death, and in anticipation of 
such an eventuality, the latter had appointed Karl Kaut- 
sky, the editor of Die Neue Zeit, the scientific organ of 
the German Socialist Party, as his successor, and famil- 
iarized him personally with the subject matter intended 
for volume IV of Capitol. The material proved to be so 
voluminous, that Kautsky, instead of making a fourth 
volume of Capital out of it, abandoned the original plan 
and issued his elaboration as a separate work in three 
volumes under the title of Theories of Surplus Value. 
It is announced that an English translation of Kaut- 
sky's compilation of the posthumous notes of Marx and 
Engels will appear in due time. So, up to the present 
time, only three volumes of Capital are available in the 
English language ; and there are three additional vol- 
umes of the same stupendous work, but under another 
name, which, as yet, have not been translated into Eng- 
lish. 



146 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Prof. LeRossignol argues in Orthodox Socialism that 
"the Marxian view of history should be called psycho- 
logical rather than materialistic, for it is based upon a 
study of the motives which actuate human conduct;" 
and although the Professor is a severe critic of Modern 
Socialism, he concedes that Marx's economic interpre- 
tation of history "is a scientific conception, and in so far 
as it is a part of Socialism, Socialism is scientific/' On 
the other hand, Dr. Bliss, who is an avowed but a mod- 
erate Socialist, says, in his Handbook of Socialism: 

Marxian Socialism has been technically called "Scientific 
Socialism," but to-day by no means all scientific Socialists 
accept its analysis. Many of them, particularly in England, 
reject Marxian economics, even in the same breath that 
they acknowledge the service rendered to mankind by Marx, 
and even while they enthusiastically support the Marxian 
Socialist policy. Marx was not the founder of a new eco- 
nomic system. He simply took the economic basis he in- 
herited from Adam Smith and Ricardo, and carried it out 
with wide learning, masterly analysis, and acutest logic into 
Socialism. But it may be carried still further to Anarchism. 
If labor is the source of value, Anarchism is logical, though 
impracticable. But the trouble was with what Marx in- 
herited. Most political economists to-day and a growing 
number of Socialists reject his inherited fundamental basis 
that labor is the source and measure of [exchange] value. 
They are coming to hold rather with Jevons, that utility, 
rightly conceived, is the source of [exchange] value. Re- 
• jecting the basis, they therefore reject the Marxian analysis 
and come to his result from another standpoint. All modern 
production they declare to be a social process, to which land, 
capital and labor must all contribute. If any persons monop- 
olize any of these elements, all other persons are necessarily 
at their service. Therefore they would have society, as a 
whole, own both land and capital and perform labor. 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 141 

The Marxian Theory of Values. 

"The key to Marx's economic doctrines," declares 
Prof. Ely, "is his theory of value;" and yet, as can be 
seen from the above quotation from Dr. Bliss, there is 
not an acceptance of this theory by all Socialists. In- 
deed, there is much confusion and difference among 
both Socialist and anti-Socialist authorities, in present- 
ing in specific formula exactly what Marx's theory is — 
and particularly what it is in relation to Labor. The 
theory is admitted by informed admirers of Marx not 
to be original with him, but is conceded to be an ampli- 
fication and scientific systemization of theories advanced 
by Rodbertus and Ricardo and others. Although Prof. 
Ely disclaims being a Socialist, yet the followers of 
Marx accept him as an impartial expounder of their 
doctrines; and the following outline by him in French 
and German Socialism of the Marxian theory of values 
may be taken as one of the best succinct statements of 
this complicated principle of Socialism which has ever 
been made : 

He [Marx] begins by separating value in use from value 
in exchange. Value in use is utility, arising from the 
adaptation of an article to satisfy some human need. Air, 
water, sunshine, wheat, potatoes, gold, and diamonds are 
examples. It does not necessarily imply exchange value. 
Many goods are very useful but not exchangeable, because 
they are free to all. Such is the case, usually, with water. 
On the other hand, no goods can have value in exchange 
unless it is useful. Men will not give something for that 
which satisfies no want or need. Both value in use and 
value in exchange are utilities, but, as they differ, there must 
be some element in the one which the other does not per se 
contain. We find what that is by analyzing the constituent 
elements of different goods which possess exchange value. 
How can we compare them? Only because they contain 



142 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

some common clement. . . . The common element is 
found alone in human labor. You compare labor with labor. 
. . . Labor-time is the measure which we apply to differ- 
ent commodities in order to compare them. We mean there- 
by the ordinary average labor which is required at a given 
time in a given society. The average man is taken as a 
basis, together with the average advantages of machinery 
and the arts. This is average social labor-time. Complicated 
labor is simply a multiple of simple labor. One man's labor, 
which has required long and careful training, may count for 
twice as much as ordinary, simple labor ; but the simple labor 
is the unit. 

Spargo (who often complains that critics misrepre- 
sent Marx) thus states the theory (Socialism) : 

. . . To state the Marxian theory accurately, we must 
qualify the bald statement that the exchange value of com- 
modities is determined by the amount of labor embodied in 
them, and state it in the following manner : The exchange 
value of commodities is determined by the amount of average 
labor at the time socially necessary for their production. 
This is determined, not absolutely in individual cases, but 
approximately in general, by the bargaining and higgling of 
die market, to adopt Adam Smith's well-known phrase. 

The best-known Marxian authority in America, Hill- 
quit, thus summarizes the fundamental principle of Mod- 
ern Socialism (Socialism in Theory and Practice) : 

The principal wealth of modern society is represented by 
an accumulation of commodities owned by individual com- 
peting capitalists and used for the purpose of exchange. The 
process of modern industry is a process of manufacture and 
exchange of such commodities. All wealth is created in that 
process, and all profits are derived through it. The different 
commodities exchange for each other at their actual value; 
hence, the accumulation of profit and wealth must not be 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 143 

looked for in the process of exchange, but in the process of 
production. 

The value of a commodity is determined by the average 
social labor expended on its production, and if the manu- 
facturing capitalist should pay to the laborer a wage equiva- 
lent to the products of his labor, there would remain no 
margin of profit for him, and the hoarding up of individual 
wealth would be impossible. 

Dr. Bliss is one of the many educated Socialists who 
repudiates Marx's theory of values, as generally inter- 
preted by both his followers and critics, his view being : 
"Labor does not measure value. A bushel of grain 
carefully and laboriously raised on a desert island 
sells for no more than a bushel of grain raised in Kent 
or Kansas. Utility, rightly understood, is the measure 
of value." 

So great is the difference among Socialists upon this 
point, and so effective has been the criticism of anti- 
Socialists upon the prevailing understanding of Marx's 
theory, that some of the defenders of the "Master" are 
driven to the worn-out expedient of declaring that he 
has been misrepresented — that Marx never intended to 
convey the impression that labor is the source of all 
value. The most plausible of all Marx's apologists, 
Spargo, admits that at the famous Convention at Gotha, 
in 1875, ^e German Social Democracy (which has 
always been of the accepted Marxian school) declared 
in their programme that "labor is the source of all 
wealth and culture;" but Spargo exultantly points out 
that Marx protested and claimed that nature should 
be included. Nevertheless, it is a fact that this declara- 
tion was allowed to remain in the programme of the 
German Social Democracy for many years; and it has 



144 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

been in the platform of many other Socialist organiza- 
tions. It is now too late in the day to deny that the 
general view among the rank and file of Marxian So- 
cialists, and also of many (if not most) of their intel- 
lectual leaders was — and is now — that all value to com- 
modities is given thereto by labor — "average" labor, if 
you will, but by labor exclusively; and, indeed, many 
of them claim that this value attaches only to manual 
labor. One of the most learned and fairest-minded of 
avowed Socialists living is Thomas Kirkup, the author 
of the noted article on Socialism in the Encyclopedia 
Britannica. In his History of Socialism (edition of 
1906) he says: ". . . It is obvious, however, that 
the definition of labor assumed both in Ricardo and 
Marx is too narrow. The labor they broadly posit as 
the source of wealth is manual labor." Socialist litera- 
ture — especially that intended for the consumption of 
the workingmen — teems with the assertion that manual 
labor is to be credited with the production of all the 
wealth of the world; and it is not unfair to say that 
Marx himself is responsible for this most extraordinary 
kind of economic doctrine, it being the only logical con- 
clusion of his teachings and of the general argument of 
his theory so ponderously and voluminously set forth 
in Capital, and still earlier in his Communist Manifesto. 
The German Socialists had imbibed their Socialist ideas 
from these two works years before they formulated the 
Gotha programme. The Manifesto was first published 
in 1848; the first German edition of Capital (the first 
volume — the only one issued by Marx himself) came 
out in 1867; an d the Gotha programme was not adopted 
until eight years afterwards. The question arises : Had 
not Marx modified his views in the meantime? It cer- 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 145 

tainly looks that way. Through what is known as the 
Bernstein controversy, in regard to the ever-increasing 
concentration of wealth and production, much doubt 
had arisen among the German Social Democracy as to 
the soundness of the Marxian philosophy ; and in an 
account of this dispute Prof. Rae makes the following 
interesting observations in the new edition (1908) of 
Contemporary Socialism: 

Now while things have thus been going hard with the 
theory of social revolution by historical necessity, which 
constitutes one-half of the Socialism that likes to call itself 
scientific, it is curious that the Marxian theory of value 
which constitutes the other half of it has been found to have 
been thrown overboard by Marx himself. It was only meet 
that the master should suffer his bit of "intellectual moult- 
ing" as well as the disciples. In the third volume of his 
work on capital [that is, the third volume of Capital'] which 
was published by his friend Engels, in 1894, he has been 
obliged to admit that the theory in question, which repre- 
sents value to be the product of labor alone, to be indeed 
nothing but the quantity of labor communicated to the com- 
modity and preserved in it, is not really true of value as 
value is actually constituted in this world. 

"Surplus Value." 

Now we are getting into "the heart of things" in the 
Marxian system of Socialism. 

The modern concept of Socialism centres around two 
ideas: (1) "surplus value," and (2) "Collectivism." 
The first idea conveys the insistence that the wage- 
earner is robbed of what rightfully belongs to him — a 
certain product of his labor which belongs to him and 
to him alone, and of which he is robbed under the pres- 
ent capitalistic system by his employer; and the second 
idea is that this robbery can only be ended, and that 



146 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

the worker can only receive the full product of his 
labor, by the communal ownership and control of the 
means of production, distribution, and exchange. Marx 
claims that Capitalism is founded on the appropriation 
of the surplus value of the product of the wage-earner 
— that the capitalist gets rich by this exploitation of the 
worker. 

In his first volume of Capital Marx thus sets out his 
theory of surplus value : 

In every kind of merchandise, also in labor capacity, there 
is a distinction between use-value and exchange-value. The 
exchange-value of labor capacity is determined by the aver- 
age quantity of labor it represents, or by the price of victuals 
ordinarily required for its sustenance. In labor capacity 
there is, however, also a certain use-value, a gift of nature, 
without cost to the laborer, but very remunerative for the 
capitalist. 

The value [exchange value] of labor capacity is therefore 
quite a different thing from its exploitation in actual work 
[its use-value]. 

This difference in values is the object which the capitalist 
has in view when purchasing "labor capacity." The capitalist 
pays merely for the exchange-value of labor capacity, but 
what he aims at obtaining is its specific use-value, namely, 
its power of producing values exceeding its own. For this 
specific purpose it is employed by the capitalist, who acts 
therein according to the immutable laws of exchange. In 
fact, the seller of labor, as of any other commodity, realizes 
no more than its exchange-value — i. e., he is paid for the 
exchange-value only of his labor, and yet surrenders its en- 
tire use-value to the purchasing capitalist. He cannot receive 
the price for the former without surrendering the latter. 
The use-value of his labor, namely, the work actually done, 
belongs to the seller no more than the use- value of oil sold 
belongs to the oil-dealer. The capitalist pays for the daily 
value of labor capacity and then claims the use of it during 
the entire day, or the work of a whole day. 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 147 

Briefly, and in simple form, the theory of Marx is 
this: The worker can, under normal conditions, pro- 
duce a value equal to the wages paid to him (which 
wages are only sufficient for his subsistence) in about 
half the time he labors: — that is, if he works, say, ten 
hours he earns enough in five to sustain him, and, as 
a matter of fact, he is only paid for five hours' work; 
then there are five hours of the daily labor which cre- 
ate surplus value, and this the capitalist appropriates. 
Shaffte puts it this way : "The worker receives in wages 
(according to the actual doctrine of the liberal political 
economists) on an average not the full productive value 
of his day's work, but very much less — in fact, only 
what will bring him the absolute necessaries of life. He 
works ten or twelve hours, while perhaps his wage is 
produced in six. Whatever he may produce beyond his 
necessaries of life (the so-called surplus- value) the cap- 
italist pockets. The surplus-value is absorbed in daily 
driblets by the great sponge of capital, becomes the 
profits of the capitalist, and eventually an accumulation 
of capital. ... So there goes on, under the mask 
of a wage-system, the daily and hourly exploitation of 
the wage-earners, and capital becomes a vampire, a 
money-grubber, and a thief." Says Marx : "This in- 
crement or excess over the original value I call surplus- 
value." Commerce, he also says, "is generally cheat- 
ing." 

Capitalism. 

It is a favorite saying of Socialists that they do not 
desire to destroy capital, but Capitalism. Marx con- 
ceives capital as "the means of exploitation" of labor. 
A brief definition of capital by Alfred Marshall is, "that 



148 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

part of wealth which is devoted to obtaining further 
wealth." In their Manifesto Marx and Engels say: 
"To be a capitalist, is to have not only a purely per- 
sonal, but a social status in production. Capital is a 
collective product, and only by the united action of 
many members, nay, in the last resort, only by the 
united action of all members of society, can it be set in 
motion." Then Marx and Engels explain what is 
meant by Socialists when they say that they do not 
seek to destroy the thing capital, but only to change its 
social relation, under Collectivism: "When, therefore, 
capital is converted into common property, into the 
property of all members of society, personal property 
is not thereby transformed into social property. It is 
only the social character of the property that is changed. 
It loses its class-character." Under the present system, 
according to the Marxian theory, capital is increased 
by the following methods : ( i ) By multiplying the num- 
ber of workmen; (2) by lengthening the working hours; 
(3) by shortening the time in which the laborer must 
work to produce what is necessary for his maintenance 
(which according to Marx's theory fixes his wages), 
this shortening of time being attained by improved 
methods and faster and more efficient machinery. And 
this brings Marx to the following conclusion: The 
greater the extent to which machines are employed and 
the more methods are improved — thus increasing the 
productivity of labor — the lower wages fall and the 
greater the profits of the capitalist becomes. 

One of the most noted of the Fabian Essays is "The 
Industrial Basis of Socialism," by William Clarke. This 
essay describes how the capitalist was originally a busi- 
ness manager, who received what is called "wages of 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 149 

superintendence," for which he performed real func- 
tions; but now the capitalist employs a salaried man- 
ager, and he himself has become a mere rent or interest 
receiver, he being paid for the use of a monopoly which 
not he but the whole people created by their joint 
efforts; and to prevent the cutting of profits capital is 
"massed" by joint-stock companies, goods are produced 
by machinery, and individual industrialism is crushed 
out. And then the essayist proceeds to say: 

The manager's business is to earn for his employers the 
largest dividends possible; if he does not do so, he is dis- 
missed. The old personal relation between the workers and 
the employer is gone; instead thereof remains merely the 
cash nexus. To secure high dividends, the manager will 
lower wages. If that is resisted there will probably be either 
a strike or lockout. Cheap labor will be, perhaps, imported 
by the manager; and if the work people resist by intimida- 
tion or organized boycotting, the forces of the State (which 
they help to maintain) will be used against them. In the 
majority of cases they must submit. Such is a not unfair 
picture of the relation of capitalist to workman to-day, the 
former having become an idle dividend receiver. 

Collectivism. 

What is the remedy for this condition of affairs? 
Modern Socialists claim that there is only one remedy 
— Collectivism, that is, the public (not the State, as 
now constituted) ownership and control of the means 
of production, distribution and exchange. Modern So- 
cialists put aside Paternal or State Socialism, Uto- 
pian Socialism (or Voluntary communistic organiza- 
tions), and Trade Unionism, profit-sharing, Co-opera- 
tion, land nationalization, a reformed system of taxa- 
tion, etc. : all these, they say, are all right in their way, 



150 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

but at the best are merely palliative and tentative; they 
claim that there can be no real solution of the labor 
problem until the ax is laid at the root of the upas-tree 
of Capitalism — until private capital is abolished, and 
capital is owned and operated by the community for the 
general benefit of all. 

How will Collectivism be brought about? It should 
ever be kept in mind that according to the Marxian the- 
ory this change from the private to the public ownership 
and control of capital is to come not by the mere will 
of humanity, but by the evolutionary process of eco- 
nomic conditions, and that this process is even now and 
indeed fast developing to fruition; although there is 
wide difference of views as to when the Co-operative 
Commonwealth will be established, and as to how the 
change will come about. But most Socialists profess an 
absolute faith in the inevitableness of the transforma- 
tion; to them it is as irresistible as fate itself; it will 
come because it must come, and not necessarily because 
it ought to come. They concede that legislative and 
State action can oil the wheels of the machine, can 
make it run easier, and might hasten the day of Jubi- 
lee ; but they claim that all the parliaments of the world 
combined, and all the Czars and Bismarcks that may yet 
arise to dominate the autocracies and bureaucracies of 
the world, cannot prevent the coming triumph of Social- 
ism. 

The "Industrial Revolution." 

Capitalism as a system, in the modern understanding 
of the term, took on definite shape as an outcome of 
what Socialists call the "industrial revolution." Ac- 
cording to the Marxian argument, this "industrial revo- 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 151 

lution" brought about the necessity for Socialism. There 
is no controversy as to the fact of the "industrial revo- 
lution/' It occurred at the close of the eighteenth cen- 
tury, and was caused by the introduction of machinery 
and the "socialization" of industries, as it is called — 
that is, by the organization of industry, the establish- 
ment of factories, and the division of labor, instead of 
the workman, as formerly, producing commodities indi- 
vidually, completing an article from start to finish. This 
"industrial revolution" swept manufactures into the 
hands of the capitalist class, and the individual, inde- 
pendent workman, owning his own means of production, 
disappeared. There had been capitalism of another 
kind before — that is, there had been systems of accumu- 
lation of wealth, some of which had been used for the 
production of other wealth. Marx denied that the 
secret of primitive accumulation was thrift and dili- 
gence as against extravagance and laziness. "The truth 
is," he says, "that historically everything is conquest, 
brutality, robbery — in a word, force. Primitive accumu- 
lation is the separation by force of the producer from 
the means of production." The wage-laborer is an evo- 
lution of economic society. There was in turn : the 
ancient slave ; the serf ; the guild-worker ; the individual, 
independent worker, owning his own means of pro- 
duction ; and lastly, there is the wage-earner, whose only 
asset is his "labor-power," and who has to sell that to 
the capitalist for the bare means of subsistence, while 
at the same time he has to turn over to the capitalist 
for nothing the "surplus value" above and beyond his 
subsistence. As to the industrial capitalist, Marx says 
that he, on his part, had (1) to fight the feudal lord; (2) 
to fight the guilds; (3) to rob the laborer of the means 



152 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

of production. The transformation of feudal exploita- 
tion into capitalistic exploitation began, here and there, 
in certain of the Mediterranean towns, as early as the 
fourteenth or fifteenth century; but formally, the capi- 
talistic era dates from the sixteenth century. When 
feudalism disappeared, the bulk of the population were 
free peasant-proprietors; and what wage-earners there 
were generally owned a little land and their cottage, and 
fed their stock on the common land, from which, also, 
they took the wood they needed for fuel. Then in the 
latter end of the fifteenth century and the commence- 
ment of the sixteenth the feudal lords drove the peas- 
ants from their possessions and stole the common lands, 
and the dispossessed and wandering ex-retainers and 
ex-peasant-proprietors were the first proletarians. By 
the end of the eighteenth century the independent yeo- 
manry had vanished, and by 1800 the last trace of the 
common land of the agricultural laborer was gone. 
Marx says that the English oligarchy of to-day was 
founded on the spoliation of the Church and the theft 
of the State lands from the peasantry. In tracing the 
development of the "capitalist farmer, ,, Marx observes: 
"The lion's share always falls to the middleman. Ex- 
amples — financiers,, merchants, shopkeepers, lawyers, 
M. P.'s, priests." When the factory system came, there 
came a new social order : on the one side Capitalism ; on 
the other side Proletarianism. Socialists claim that the 
proletarians, the wage-earners, are really economic 
slaves. Now: "Self-earned private property, that is 
based, so to say, on the fusing together of the isolated, 
independent laboring individual with the conditions of 
his labor, is supplanted by capitalistic private property, 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 153 

which rests on the exploitation of the nominally free 
labor of others, i. e., on wages-labor." 

But there is still a further evolutionary development 
of the economic relations between Capital and Labor in 
the assumed inevitable march to Collectivism. The 
large capitalists begin to attack the smaller: "One cap- 
italist always kills many." Parallel with the relative 
ever-diminishing number of small, individual capital- 
ists — as claimed by the Marxists — and with the increase 
of the strength of the capitalism of the remaining 
monopolists, trusts, and combines, there is "a growing 
mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, exploita- 
tion; but with this, too, grows the revolt of the work- 
ing class, a class always increasing in numbers, and 
disciplined, united, organized, by the very mechanism 
of the process of capitalist production itself." Re- 
ferring to the gobbling up of the small and individual 
capitalists by the large and combined capitalists, Marx 
exclaims with exultant sarcasm, "The knell of capitalist 
property sounds. The expropriators are expropriated! 
The capitalist mode of appropriation, the result of the 
capitalist mode of production, produces capitalist pri- 
vate property." Marx argues, and present-day Social- 
ists boast, that the formation of the vast commercial 
combines and industrial trusts are not an obstacle but 
almost a condition-precedent for the introduction of 
Socialism. Says Marx: "The transformation of scat- 
tered private property, arising from individual labor, 
into capitalist private property, is, naturally, a process 
incomparably more protracted, violent, and difficult, 
than the transformation of capitalistic private property, 
already practically resting on socialized production, into 



154 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

socialized property. In the former cases we had the 
expropriation of the mass of the people by a few 
usurpers; in the latter, we have the expropriation of a 
few usurpers by the mass of the people. " Stripped of 
verbiage, Marx means by this that the establishment 
of Socialism will be easier than was the establishment 
of the present system of Capitalism. 

How Will Collectivism be Established? 

After diligently and laboriously groping his way 
through the ponderosities of Marxian Socialism to the 
stage where it is mathematically demonstrated that Cap- 
italism must collapse and Collectivism must come as an 
irresistible economic evolution, the faithful student at 
last reaches "the jumping-off place." According to that 
most delightfully inconsistent of all Socialist writers, 
H. G. Wells, Socialism is exchanging "New Worlds for 
Old." But how is the exchange to come about? Be- 
hind him, the student sees the bleak, cruel desert of 
Capitalism; in front of him lies the fruitful, joyous 
garden of Socialism. How is the weary traveller to 
cross the intervening yawning chasm, the dividing tor- 
rent ? Is he to reach the promised land by being borne 
over by a catastrophic upheaval, by one Titanic pro- 
pulsive explosion of the forces of nature? Or, is he, 
slowly and laboriously, with much halting and many 
set-backs, to struggle onward, ploddingly, progressing 
step by step across the valley of tribulation and despair ; 
and then, when out of the depths, to make the ascent 
to the other side, climbing upwards literally inch by 
inch, digging his bleeding hands and fleet into the pre- 
cipitous and rocky ledges, until he finally reaches the 
top, and then to pass, exhausted, but triumphant, 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 155 

through the golden shining gateway into the Paradise 
of the world's toilers — Collectivism? 

One can search the whole range of Modern Socialist 
literature without finding an adequate answer. To ask 
the question is foolishness; to attempt to answer it is 
still greater foolishness : Such is the Modern Socialist 
position. Confessedly, nobody of authority pretends to 
be able to give a satisfactory answer. But there are 
Socialists who, while they will not undertake to lay 
down a programme, will go so far as to suggest how 
Collectivism may be brought about. If objections are 
made thereto, then these Socialists calmly say, as if the 
subject is not of much importance, anyhow, "Very well, 
we won't discuss the matter. We'll concede all you say, 
if you like ; all we know is that in some way Collectiv- 
ism will be brought about!" The great trouble is, they 
say, that nobody who is not a Marxian Socialist under- 
stands Marxian Socialism ! And without a trace of sar- 
casm it might be remarked that those who are so gifted 
with intelligence as to be able to understand Marxian 
Socialism, understand it in so many different ways as 
to be quite confusing to ordinary mortals. Of all the 
American expounders of Marxian Socialism, from a 
professedly Marxian standpoint, the most pretentious 
exponent — and the adjective is not used in an offensive 
sense — is Ernest Untermann, the editor of the new 
American edition of the three first volumes of Capital. 
He complains that "the professors of the ruling class 
have never been able to distinguish between a scheme 
and a historical process." That is the old complaint of 
the Marxians. They set aside Utopian Socialism and 
State Socialism as "mere schemes/' and they speak of 
Marxian Socialism as "a historical development." Still, 



156 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

even Mr. Untermann recognizes the requirement of 
saying something about the manner of the transforma- 
tion from Individualism to Collectivism; and this is his 
explanation (Marxian Economics) : 

The antagonism between exploiters and exploited becomes 
more and more intense. It is transferred from the economic 
to the political field. Organized by the requirements of capi- 
talist production itself, the proletariat adapts its economic 
organizations to the form of modern centralized industries, 
transforms its craft unions into industrial unions, unites its 
economic and political organizations in a well-planned divi- 
sion of labor, conquers the political power, and enables its 
economic organizations to take hold of the great sources of 
production and distribution in the interest of the working 
class, which remains the sole essential class in society. 

As soon as the working class controls the nation econom- 
ically and politically, it inaugurates a system of collective 
production, in which the producers control their means of 
life, determine their own share in the co-operatively pro- 
duced articles, and remove all obstacles to a full human de- 
velopment. Capitalism leaves the field to Socialism. 

There is unanimity among all schools of Socialists 
that the first thing for the proletariat to do is to "seize 
the political power ;" and then, in the language of Lieb- 
knecht, "Down with the wage system !" Listen to the 
"Masters/' Marx and Engels themselves, in their Mani- 
festo: . . . "The first step in the revolution by the 
working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position 
of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy. The 
proletariat will use its political supremacy, to wrest, by 
degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to concentrate 
all instruments of production in the hands of the State, 
i. e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class ; and 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 157 

to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as 
possible." 

Hillquit argues that in the general scheme of Social- 
ism, the modern State has the very important mission 
of paving the way for the transition from private to 
collective ownership ; but he confesses — and here he dif- 
fers from most Marxians — that the transformation will 
be by no means a simple task. 

The same writer touches upon a phase of this ques- 
tion which is generally avoided by cautious "Intellec- 
tual" Socialists — that of compensation for private prop- 
erty turned into public ownership. It is very significant, 
however, that in much of the current Socialist literature 
intended for the consumption of the working class, the 
doctrine of confiscation is boldly preached. Hillquit 
observes that the "Socialist programme" is silent upon 
this point, although he claims that "the greater number 
of Socialist writers incline towards compensation;" but 
he adds that in this they merely express their individual 
present preferences. He draws attention to the fact that 
the French clergy were not compensated for the lands 
taken from them by the bourgeoisie revolution, and that 
the Russian noblemen and the American owners were 
not paid upon the emancipation of their serfs and slaves. 
It is evident that Hillquit is not shocked by the possi- 
bility of confiscation under Socialism. 

Dr. Schaffle (Quintessence of Socialism) explains 
that Socialism would probably take over private indus- 
tries one after another, and organize them upon a pub- 
lic basis, and that "it might begin by taking only those 
branches of industry which are already carried on on a 
large scale, and consolidating them into uniform pro- 



158 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

ductive public bodies under State regulation and in- 
spection." 

Notwithstanding that Morris and Bax are strongly 
Marxian, they declare that the "catastrophic" theory of 
the collapse of private capitalistic ownership and the 
sudden transformation of industries into Collective 
property, is a "ridiculous assumption ;" and they suggest 
that there should be the acquirement by municipalities 
and trade organizations of the industries of the country. 
This has not only been the theory but has been the prin- 
ciple of action of both the English (Fabian) and the 
French Socialists ; and Enrico Ferri, a leader of the 
Italian Socialists, urges that the conquest of political 
power by the Socialists must primarily come through 
the municipalities. (Socialism and Positive Science,) 

Spargo confesses that "omniscience would be neces- 
sary" to tell how Socialism would be established; and 
in this connection he gives the following personal rem- 
iniscence in Socialism: 

Those who are familiar with the writings of Marx know 
that, in strange contrast with the fundamental principles of 
that theory of social evolution which he so well developed, 
he lapsed at times into the Utopian habit of predicting the 
sudden transformation of society. Capitalism was to end 
in a great final "catastrophe" and the new order be born in 
the travail of a "social revolution." I remember that when 
I joined the Socialist movement, many years ago, the Social 
Revolution was a very real event, inevitable and nigh at 
hand, to most of us. The more enthusiastic of us dreamed 
of it; we " sang songs in the spirit of the Chansons Revolu- 
tionaives, one of which, as I recall, told plainly enough what 
we would do — 

"When the Revolution comes." 
Some comrades actually wanted to have military drill at 
our business meetings, merely that we might be ready for 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 159 

the Revolution, which might occur any Monday morning 
or Friday afternoon. If this seems strange and comic as 1 
relate it to-day, please remember that we were very few 
and very young, and, therefore, very sure that we were to 
redeem the world. We lived in a state of revolutionary 
ecstasy. Some of us, I think, must have gone regularly to 
sleep in the mental state of Tennyson's May Queen, with 
words equivalent to her childish admonition — 

"If you're waking call me early," 
so fearful were we that the Revolution might start without 
us ! 

Here again, Socialism sings two songs — one to the 
"intellectuals," and the other to the proletariat: for, 
most certainly the old Marxian theory still holds its 
sway in most popular presentations of Socialism. The 
same is true as to compensation and confiscation: — the 
learned text-books attempt to smooth matters over by 
saying that in democratically-governed countries in 
which Socialism will be established without a revolution, 
there will probably be compensation for property taken 
over ; but in speeches and newspapers and cheap publica- 
tions intended for working men, confiscation is not only 
suggested but is often boldly defended. 

The Co-operative Commonwealth. 

Necessarily, the organization and administration of 
the Co-operative Commonwealth would depend largely 
upon the extent to which the principle of Collectivism 
would be applied. Here again we are confronted by a 
great divergence among Socialists. Among their lead- 
ing writers of the present day the prevailing opinion 
seems to be that quite apart from mere personal be- 
longings, it would not be practical for the State to own 
and control all the means of production. There is, how- 



160 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

ever, a general agreement that the following should be 
included within public socialization: (i) All natural 
resources — land, mines, forests, water-ways, oil wells, 
etc.; (2) means of public transportation — railroads, 
canals, street cars, etc.; (3) means of communication — 
telegraphs, telephones, and wireless telegraphy; (4) all 
"Socialized" industrial operations, particularly those in- 
volving large capital, and even more especially those 
which are in their nature monopolies, or which have 
come under the control of trusts and combinations; (5) 
all such other works and functions as are now under 
public ownership and control. 

In regard to the abstract principle of Collectivism, 
that in itself is a comparatively simple matter. It is in 
the application of that principle, and the administration 
of the consequent organized system, that the greatest 
difficulties arise, even when treated theoretically. Many 
Socialist authorities loftily brush aside all questions 
relating even to the possible framework of the organ- 
ization and administration of the Co-operative Com- 
monwealth; and some of them ignore the question of 
details but undertake to outline the form which the 
Socialist State may likely take. When anti-Socialist 
objections are raised, then the always-ready answer is 
made that Socialism is a principle and not a scheme. 
With regard to the principle of Collectivism itself, there 
has been, at any rate, a certain standard, and, indeed, 
creed, with Marx as the authority and prophet. But, 
having bequeathed to his followers the Socialist State, 
Marx leaves them to their own devices. Modern So- 
cialism disdains Utopianism — it is contrary to its very 
genius to idealize about anything; it simply provides for 
overturning the existing political, social, and economic 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 161 

systems, and securing possession of all productive capi- 
tal ; and the rest is in the womb of the future. In their 
Manifesto, Marx and Engels proclaim that the Social- 
ists "openly declare that their ends can be attained only 
by the forcible overthrow of all existing social condi- 
tions/' The two most prominent leaders of German 
Social Democracy say the same thing, Liebknecht de- 
claring that they demand "a radical abolition of the 
present social order," and Bebel announcing that they 
intend to "make a clean sweep." 

Socialism as Affecting Religion and the Family. 

Here arises a fundamental difference between two 
distinct schools of Marxian Socialists, not to speak of 
those Socialists who decline to be so labelled. One 
school hold that the application of Marxian principles 
will have only economic effects. They confine the 
"materialistic conception of history" and the interpre- 
tation of the forces making for Socialism purely to "the 
bread and butter" problem; they limit the principles of 
Socialism and Collectivism altogether to material 
things ; to them Socialism means that instead of private 
property there will be public property — that instead of 
wages there will be "an equitable apportionment" to 
every worker of the products of hk labor, or a distri- 
bution of the general product according to his individual 
needs — and to them Socialism means nothing more, 
except, of course, a democratic form of government. It 
is fair to say that this is the publicly-declared attitude 
of most of the organized Political Socialist parties 
throughout the world within recent years; but it is not 
unfair also to say that the organized Socialists have 
been driven into this position by reason of the attacks 



162 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

which have been made upon them on the ground that 
the adoption or the coming into being of Socialism 
would mean the complete overthrow of the present 
social state as affecting religion, the family, and partic- 
ularly the marriage relation. The exact point at issue 
is often misunderstood by critics of Socialism. There 
have been Socialists who have cried "Down with 
religion!" or "Abolish the family!" or "Let's have free 
love!" There may be such who demanded these things 
from sheer perversity or depravity of nature; but such 
men, it is proper to say, form an infinitesimal minority 
even among "extreme" Socialists. The question really 
resolves itself into that of the inherent and inevitable 
all-embracive evolutionary principle of Socialism as 
defined by Marx and Engels. 

There are a large number of Socialists — the second 
school of Marxians referred to — who extend the prin- 
ciple or doctrine of the "materialistic conception of his- 
tory" into every relation of life, social, ethical and relig- 
ious, as well as economic and political. And it cannot 
be denied that these latter interpreters of Marxism have 
included the great majority of the recognized intellec- 
tual leaders of the movement. They ridicule the idea 
that the spirit and philosophy of Socialism are to be con- 
fined solely to the matter of the production of goods 
and the apportionment of the products of Labor. To 
them Socialism means vastly more than a wholesale co- 
operative scheme; they believe that Socialism is ail- 
inclusively Sociological, and not exclusively Economic. 
This is true not only of the original Marxian Socialists, 
but is true of the brainiest of the Socialist leaders to-day. 
They naturally have a feeling of contempt for the com- 
promising and apologetic attitude adopted by some So- 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 163 

cialist writers whose self-imposed mission is to brush 
away difficulties and to smooth off the rough edges of 
their cult as originally presented, and to form Political 
Socialist organizations whose main object is, for the time 
being, to catch votes. One has only to read current 
Socialist literature to see plenty of manifestations of this 
sentiment. 

It is not the primary purpose of the writer to present 
an argument against Socialism by showing that in its 
very essence and its consequence it is both irreligious 
and immoral; but no adequate presentation of Socialism 
can be made which suppresses or glosses over the ques- 
tion of its relation to religion and social ethics. There 
are the very highest authorities for this position — no 
less authorities than Marx and Engels themselves. In 
the preface to his Criticism of Political Economy Marx 
says : "The method of production in our material life 
shapes and determines also our entire social, political, 
and intellectual process of life. It is not the mind of 
man which determines his life in society, but, on the 
contrary, it is this life which determines his mind." 
Engels tells us: "At the root of the materialistic 
conception of history there is the proposition that 
production, and next to production the exchange 
of products, forms the base of social order. . . . 
Accordingly, the ultimate causes of social changes 
and of political revolutions are not to be looked 
for in the brains of men and in their growing compre- 
hension of eternal truth and justice, but in the changes 
affecting the manner of production and exchange." 
Speaking at the grave of Marx, Engels declared that as 
Darwin had discovered the law of evolution in organic 
nature, so Marx had in the history of mankind, and he 



164 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

expounded the Marxian Materialistic doctrine to mean 
that "the production of the immediate material means 
of life and the corresponding stage of economic evolu- 
tion of a nation or epoch forms the foundation from 
which the civil institutions of the people in question, 
their ideas of law, of art, of religion even, have been 
developed and according to which they are to be ex- 
plained — and not the reverse, as has been done hereto- 
fore." 

Prof. Richard T. Ely (University of Wisconsin) may 
be described as a "Collectivist Opportunist," as prac- 
tically a Fabian of a modified degree. He denies being 
a Socialist, as the term is accepted, and certainly he is 
not a Marxian; but he is recognized as an absolutely 
fair and a discriminating exponent of all schools. In 
his standard work, Socialism and Social Reform, he 
says that Marx "made Socialism a philosophy of every 
department of social life." And he goes on to state 
that "Socialism, to the strict Marxist, means a concep- 
tion of religion, of literature, and of science, as well as 
of an economic philosophy." This, he explains, "is a 
natural consequence of his (Marx's) materialistic con- 
ception of history," which, however, he styles "an anti- 
quated philosophy." 

Without any reflection on their personal morality, it 
is only stating a self-confessed fact that in the ordinary 
acceptation of the word, Marx and Engels were athe- 
ists. In his Landmarks of Scientific Socialism Engels 
declares that "religion is nothing but the fantastic reflec- 
tion in men's minds of the external forces which domi- 
nate their every-day existence, a reflection in which 
earthly forces take the form of the supernatural." In 
Engel's view, religion is nothing but the outcome of the 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 165 

economic conditions arising from the present capitalis- 
tic system! His argument is involved, but stripped of 
philosophical terminology, it is that man seeks religion 
when he is not master of his own destiny — that, as he 
is a "slave," under the present capitalistic system, so 
therefore he seeks religion; but that when Socialism is 
established, then man will be "free," and then the very 
reason for the existence of religion will disappear ! This 
argument was written in reply to the work of another 
Socialist who had advocated that when the Socialist 
Commonwealth was established, religion should be for- 
bidden. But why, asked Engels, forbid a thing which 
would die a natural death? — as, in his opinion, religion 
must, under Socialism. 

If the reader turns to the Manifesto of Marx and 
Engels — the epitome of Modern Socialism — he will find 
a number of references to religion and the family; and 
the authors acknowledge that Socialists are charged 
with the intention to abolish both. What is their reply? 
They do not deny the charge, but they indulge in some 
cynical remarks condemnatory of the prevailing relig- 
ious ideas and of the marriage and family relationship, 
which they say are part of "the social consciousness of 
past ages . . . which cannot completely vanish 
except with the total disappearance of class antagon- 
isms." It is difficult to come to any other conclusion 
after reading their Manifesto than that Marx and En- 
gels believed that the establishment of their Socialist 
State would inevitably lead to the disappearance of what 
is understood as orthodox religion, and, indeed, to a 
non-recognition of any supernatural or providential in- 
tervention in human affairs; and that it would also 
mean the abolition of the permanent monogamic mar- 



166 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

riage relation and of the family as now constituted. 
These changes — which would, indeed, be "catastrophic" 
— would come about, it should be carefully noted, in the 
natural course of economic and social evolution, accord- 
ing to the strict, unadulterated Marxian theory of Sci- 
entific Socialism. It is true that there are Socialists 
like Thomas Kirkup who believe that Socialism will be 
"purified" as to both its economics and its ethics; there 
are those like Spargo who make special pleadings and 
apologetics for this phase of Socialism; and there are 
also Socialist political organizations which change their 
flag according to national prejudices, or shift it to catch 
passing breezes, and are prepared to change their creed 
to suit the fickle proletariat; but it is nevertheless true 
that nearly all the commanding intellects of Modern 
Socialism, from Owen, Marx and Engels down to the 
present-day leaders, hold to the doctrine: first, that 
Socialism affects all human affairs — ethical as well as 
economic; and secondly, that under Socialism religion 
will die a natural death (or will be suppressed forcibly), 
and that there will be a revolution in the present mar- 
riage and family relationship. 

Speaking for the German Social Democracy in the 
Reichstag, on September 16, 1878, Bebel said : "Gen- 
tlemen, you attack our views on religion because they 
are atheistic and materialistic. I acknowledge the cor- 
rectness of the impeachment. ... I am fairly con- 
vinced that Socialism finally leads to atheism." 

Socialism Involves Ethics as Well as Economics. 

Morris and Bax boldly assert that under the Socialist 
order the particulars of life concerning marriage and 
the family would be affected not only economically, but 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 167 

in ethics. They join in the common Socialist argu- 
ment that at present the married woman is "an eco- 
nomic slave," she being a dependent of her husband; 
but they say that Socialism would bring about a condi- 
tion of "freedom." As a logical consequence, they 
argue, according to the doctrine of "the materialistic 
conception of history," the marriage relation would also 
become "free," in this : that a new development would 
take place from which would ensue a relationship be- 
tween a man and a woman based "on mutual inclina- 
tion and affection, an association terminable at the will 
of either party. . . . There would be no vestige of 
reprobation weighing on the dissolution of one tie and 
the forming of another." (Socialism, Its Growth and 
Outcome.) 

In the Open Review (London), of July, 1909, Bax 
had an article on "Definitions of Socialism," in which 
he vigorously protested against the recent tendency "to 
narrow down the definition of Socialism too exclusively 
and too formally to the central economic issue." As 
Bax is generally recognized as the most profound of 
all living Marxian Socialists in the English-speaking 
world, his article is partly quoted : 

. . . The attempt to define Socialism by a purely eco- 
nomic formula is not merely logically invalid and unsupported 
by the attitude, if not by the formal words, of the vast 
number of those who call themselves Socialists. It is also 
historically unjustifiable. The word, from its earliest use 
by Owen, Leroux, Reubaud, etc., in the thirties and forties of 
the last century, has always stood for a revolution, along cer- 
tain well-defined lines, in human life generally. The attempt 
to limit it to a technical economic formula . . . is, as I 
have said, quite late. This attempt received one of its earliest 
expressions in English literature in Mr. Kirkup's article in 



168 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

the "Encyclopaedia Britannica" [ninth edition]. . . . His 
example has since been followed by a large number of expo- 
nents, hostile and friendly. It is difficult to say how, in the 
view of the history of the word, the exponents in question 
justified this restriction of meaning. The "materialist doc- 
trine of history" of Marx certainly emphasizes the economic 
basis of the social life of man, as in a sense the cause of all 
other manifestations of that life, even those seemingly most 
remote, but in practice even the strictest adherents of the 
doctrine in question assume the results of the economic 
change as taking place along definite lines, alike as regards 
man's "view of the world," as regards the family relation, 
and as regards political issues, and do not hesitate to say so 
as occasion arises. It is well known that they are in favor of 
freer marriage relations, of the recognition by society of the 
conclusions of science as opposed to theological conceptions, 
and of democratic republicanism as against all forms of mon- 
archical or oligarchic rule. In these demands they undoubt- 
edly carry on the tradition of historical Socialism, and the 
Marxian party, using the word in its larger meaning in the 
present day, is practically conterminous with the International 
Socialist movement. . . . Most Marxians do admit, that 
as above said, these other changes are involved in the eco- 
nomic change itself, for as such they cannot fail to be re- 
garded as forming part and parcel of the changed conditions 
of the new society, which is only another way of saying 
that they must form an essential element in the complete 
ideal of Socialism. 

It is not necessary to multiply examples. The pres- 
ent book is mainly an exposition and history of Social- 
ism, and is not concerned with criticism except inci- 
dentally; and the references here made and the quota- 
tions given are only presented because, according to the 
very highest authorities, this aspect of Socialism is a 
fundamental part of the system. In all fairness it must 
be recorded that there are thousands of good religious 
rnen calling themselves Christian Socialists^ as wejl as 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 169 

certain professors of an elastic modified Marxism (like 
Kirkup and Spargo), who indignantly deny that repu- 
diation of Divine Providence and an upsetting of the 
present marriage and family relations are contemplated 
by or would result from Socialism, any more than that 
such eventualities can be associated with Republican- 
ism or Democracy, or with Toryism or Liberalism — 
although they freely admit that Socialists themselves are 
largely responsible for the criticisms made in these 
respects. They point to the fact that there are atheists 
and immoral men connected with the parties named, and 
they ask whether atheism and immorality are therefore 
to be considered as part of their principles? Clearly 
not; but there is a great difference in the two cases. 
Mr. Ingersoll was an agnostic and also a Republican; 
does that fact make the Republican Party an agnostic 
party ? By no means. Marx and Engels were agnostics 
— atheists, and also Socialists; does that make the So- 
cialist Party an agnostic, an atheistic party? Certainly 
not. But the comparisons are incomplete, and the argu- 
ment of the Socialist apologists is inadequate. Mr. 
Ingersoll never claimed that agnosticism had anything 
to do with Republicanism, or that it was an irresistible 
tendency and outcome of Republicanism. But, on the 
other hand, Marx and Engels, and most of the other 
great shining intellectual exponents of Modern Social- 
ism, have asserted that the philosophy of Socialism 
embraces all the relations and phases of human life — 
ethical as well as economic; and that the inevitable ten- 
dency and outcome of the application of the principles 
of Socialism will be the natural death or the abolition 
of supernatural religion and the destruction of the 
existing sexual and family status. Furthermore, if one 



i/o WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

of the principal "fundamentals" of Socialism (viz., the 
materialistic conception of history) be sound, then no 
declaration by any man or any set of men, no repu- 
diating resolution by a congress of vote-catching Social- 
ist politicians, no legislation by a Socialist State even, 
can alter the inevitable tendency and outcome of Social- 
ism — for Socialism is a principle, not a creed or scheme ! 
The question *is : Who is to decide what that tendency 
is and what the outcome will be? Shall it be the So- 
cialist politicians or the intellectual leaders and ex- 
pounders of Socialism? 

Wages and Distribution of Products. 

Assuming the establishment of the Co-operative Com- 
monwealth, the next question to arise in the mind of a 
practical man would naturally be : How are the workers 
to be remunerated? On what principle are they to 
receive their quantum of subsistence and of the conve- 
niences, luxuries, and pleasures of life? 

Here again there are wide differences among Social- 
ists. As a practical matter, it is the most important 
in the entire discussion; and it is perfectly fair and 
reasonable to demand from Socialists an intelligent 
answer, for according to their theory all the relations 
of life depend upon the "bread and butter" problem. 
Some Socialists ignore the question; and that is cer- 
tainly the easiest way to dispose of it. Others, with 
much elaboration, suggest methods of "equitably" dis- 
tributing among the workers the products of their labor 
and their share of the general possessions of the com- 
munity, whether in goods or money; and not a few of 
these ingenious gentlemen are sarcastic as well as dog- 
matic toward those who presume to question the prac- 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 171 

ticability, the equity, or the wisdom of their plans. 
Others say that it is not important, in any case, and 
that the question will settle itself after the establishment 
of Socialism. 

The general question of remuneration, or the sharing 
of the public property, has a number of aspects, the 
most prominent of them being: 

(1) The assignment and apportionment of labor. 

(2) The distribution of the products. Is it to be 
according to deeds or according to needs? 

(3) Is payment to be in "kind," in "labor checks," 
or in money? 

(1) A number of Scientific Socialist writers, while 
repudiating Bellamy's Utopianism in Looking Back- 
ward, have imitated him in setting forth plans showing 
how easy it will be to arrange all these "trivial details." 
But the schemes for arranging matters are very diverse, 
and sometimes conflicting. Some Socialists say that 
every man would have to work at whatever he was 
assigned to do; others that he would be allowed to 
choose his occupation, unless that particular sphere of 
labor was overcrowded; some maintain that every man 
would have to take his turn at disagreeable and labori- 
ous occupations, while others suggest that the best way 
would be to induce men to do this class of work by 
making their hours of labor very short; and still others 
contend that those who performed dangerous or un- 
pleasant work should be looked upon as civic heroes, 
and should be rewarded with medals. As to the lazy, 
most Socialists agree that these pests should be made 
to work, by force, if necessary; while some optimists 
profess to believe that when the spirit of Socialism had 



172 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

thoroughly permeated humanity, all such vices as lazi- 
ness would disappear from the face of the earth. 

(2) This is one of "the hardest nuts to crack" in the 
entire range of Socialist problems. Of course, "the 
authorities" are all at sea with respect to a solution. 
Most of them agree at the outset, that the distribution 
must be "equitable ;" but when details are faced the dif- 
ficulties begin. Moreover, there is a general policy pur- 
sued by Socialist advocates of avoiding the difficulties; 
and some speakers and writers lightly dispose of the 
question by saying that it is one of those "inconsequen- 
tial things" which can easily be settled when King 
Demos sits upon his throne! The difficulty is, they 
plead, not in distributing the product of labor, but in 
getting away from the capitalist the undue share which 
he now receives ; and it is to be observed that at Social- 
ist meetings this remark always brings out loud ap- 
plause. But some conscientious (although probably un- 
wise) Socialists have bravely attempted to show how 
the problem can be satisfactorily solved; and naturally, 
they do not agree among themselves. Some insist that 
a man should be paid the exact (or approximately 
exact) value of the product of his work — they ignoring 
the difficulty of determining that in "socialized" indus- 
tries; while there are those who claim that if a man 
worked the number of hours allotted to him, he should 
be paid the standard wage, or receive his proportionate 
share of the standard amount of the product earned by 
the entire group or community, irrespective of his skill 
or the quantity of his individual product. 

A reference to Chapter II ("What is Socialism?") 
will show that there is ample authority — including Marx 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 173 

himself — for the contention that Socialism implies a 
bestowal of commodities "according to needs/' 

(3) "Up-to-date" Socialists have generally abandoned 
the original Utopian theory (advanced by Marx in his 
miscellaneous writings) of rewarding labor on the sta- 
tistical system of the "time-basis" — that is, of finding 
out the number of hours socially necessary to produce 
the required amount of commodities, first for a given 
commodity, and then applying the principle universally, 
the State giving the workmen "time certificates" ex- 
changeable for supplies. Of course, such a system 
would preclude the possibility of rewarding a workman 
according to his labor, as the poor and slow workman 
would receive the same compensation as the skilled and 
rapid workman; yet, it is a favorite claim of Socialists 
that the workman should receive the full product of his 
labor. Kirkup remarks (Inquiry into Socialism) that 
this claim "is plausible in appearance, but when exam- 
ined is found to be void of meaning, for in the highly 
organized industry of the present, which is really a 
co-operation of the whole working society inheriting 
the labors of the past, how can we discriminate the 
individual share of each worker?" Hillquit takes the 
view that the "time-certificate" plan is out of the ques- 
tion, he saying (Socialism in Theory and Practice) : 

Modern Socialists recognize that the methods of distri- 
bution under the new order of things must take for their 
starting point the present methods, i. e., payments of varying 
wages or salaries for services rendered. 

Here again we run counter to a deep-rooted popular con- 
ception, or rather misconception, of the Socialist program. 
One of the pet schemes of the early Socialist experimenters 



174 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

was the substitution of "labor certificates" or "time certifi- 
cates" for money. . . . Modern Socialists have long dis- 
carded all miniature social experimentations and arbitrary 
social devices as Utopian and puerile. 

Some Socialists and most critics claim that Marx him- 
self favored the labor-time-basis as an equitable scheme 
for distributing the proceeds of labor under Socialism; 
but this is denied by other expounders. The latter con- 
tend that Marx's time theory only applies to the pro- 
duction of private property under the present capital- 
istic system. This may be true as to Capital, but Marx 
certainly favored the labor-time-basis in other writings. 
But there is now a general recognition on the part of 
well-informed Socialists that it would be impracticable 
and unfair to apply it to work under the Co-operative 
Commonwealth. Indeed, the old original Communistic 
doctrine of "share-and-share-alike" is again becoming 
the accepted doctrine — providing, of course, that this 
principle be applied only to those who work according 
to their ability. It is unfair to charge Modern Social- 
ists with an intention to reward the lazy equally with 
the industrious — although coupled with that statement 
should go the observation that according to Socialists 
the amount of work required from each man will be so 
small and will require such a short time each day [some 
put it as low as two hours!] that even the chronically 
lazy ones will not object to do their apportionment. 
Hillquit says (Theory and Practice) : 

The Socialists do not offer a cut and dried plan of wealth 
distribution. 

As a proposition of abstract justice and fairness there is 
no reason why any discrimination at all should be made in 



MARXIAN SOCIALISM 175 

the distribution of the necessaries and material comforts of 
life between the members of the community. The increased 
productivity of labor and the consequent augmentation of 
wealth are due to the concerted efforts of men in all fields 
of endeavor, physical and mental, in generations past as well 
as present, and the precise share of each individual in the 
general wealth of the nation is altogether insusceptible of 
measurement. 

. . . To the Socialists the old Communistic motto : 
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his 
needs," generally appears as the ideal rule of distribution in 
an enlightened human society, and quite likely the time will 
come when that high standard will be generally adopted by 
civilized communities. . . . But just and feasible as this 
ideal method of distribution may be, it is to-day nevertheless 
a mere ideal, a hope to be realized in the more or less distant 
future. It is not a part of the present programme of Social- 
ist movement. 

But Hillquit does not meet the question. He does 
not explain how his particular school of Socialists pro- 
pose to decide as to assignment of work and the amount 
of wages to be paid to each man. 

Spargo is equally vague as to the actual practice to 
be adopted. He freely admits, however, "that approxi- 
mate equality of income is the ideal to be ultimately 
aimed at." Otherwise — and here he agrees with Mrs. 
Besant — class distinctions would inevitably reappear, 
and the old struggle for equality would have to be 
fought over again. But Spargo also quotes with ap- 
proval the declaration of Kautsky (who he says is "per- 
haps the greatest living exponent of the theories of 
Modern Socialism) that "wages, unequal and paid in 
money, will be the method of remuneration for labor in 
the Socialist regime." 



CHAPTER IX 

SOCIALISM IN AMERICA 

The first recorded Socialist declaration in America 
was in New York in 1829, during an agitation against 
increased hours of labor, when a mechanic named 
Thomas Skidmore drew up an agrarian preamble, which 
has been described as "transporting into economics the 
Declaration of Independence." In that document it 
was resolved that "the Creator has made all equal/' and 
that "in the first formation of government no man gives 
up to others his original right of soil and becomes a 
smith, a weaver, a builder, or other mechanic or laborer, 
without receiving a guaranty that reasonable toil shall 
enable him to live as comfortable as others." Part of 
the movement drifted into Owenism, and what was left 
received its death-blow through the political strategy 
of that horny-handed friend of Labor — Tammany. 

Backwardism of American Socialism. 

It cannot be said that the history of Socialism in 
America since then has been a very successful one, 
whatever it may be in the future; in fact, as an organ- 
ized force, Scientific Socialism is less in evidence in 
America than in any other progressive country in the 
world, although Utopianism has been experimented 
with to a greater extent here than anywhere else. 

176 



SOCIALISM IN AMERICA 177 

Speaking generally, Socialists have been able to secure 
but very few representatives in Municipal Councils or 
in State Legislatures, or to elect State officers — Wis- 
consin being a notable exception. No Socialist has ever 
been elected to Congress as such until Victor Berger 
was elected in 1910, and, indeed, it is probably true that 
no Socialist was ever elected to Congress before last 
year, even as a member of one of the orthodox parties, 
although sometimes "Populists" have been erroneously 
called Socialists. This is remarkable in view of the fact 
that the United States is the greatest democracy in the 
world, and possesses universal manhood suffrage. So- 
cialism is now a political force to be reckoned with in 
the Parliaments of all European countries, and also in 
several of the Legislatures of the British self-governing 
colonies. In 1909 little Holland had 10 Socialist repre- 
sentatives in her Parliament; Sweden had 15; Denmark 
had 24 ; Italy had 25 ; Belgium had 30 ; Germany had 43 ; 
Great Britain had in 1906-1909 55 (Labor-Socialists) ; 
New Zealand had 60; France had 75; Finland had 80; 
and Austria had 87. And the number is increasing, par- 
ticularly in Germany. 

There are a number of reasons to account for the 
fact that Socialism has not made much progress in the 
United States, the principal ones being: The general 
spirit of strong individuality and self-reliance ; the wide- 
spread prosperity of all classes, as compared with the 
people of other countries ; the innate political conserva- 
tism of native Americans, which disinclines them to 
take up experiments in government, especially where 
property rights and constitutional personal prerogatives 
are involved; the comparative absence of "class con- 
sciousness" on the part of the working men (although 



178 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

a change is now manifest in this regard) ; the fact that 
it has been the almost unbroken rule — until recently — 
for organized workingmen to refrain from separate 
political action, and, indeed, from participation in poli- 
tics whatever, but to confine themselves to their own 
special trade matters, or at the most only to interest 
themselves in matters of general social reform outside 
the sphere of politics. Occasionally Trade Unions have 
broken the rule referred to, but in nearly every instance 
it has spelt disaster to the organization. Within the 
last few years, however, there have been indications of 
a change of attitude in this regard by organized Labor. 
The Socialists are keenly alive to the situation, and they 
expect that the near future will witness a great acces- 
sion to their ranks from the Trade Unionists — and pos- 
sibly an actual official working arrangement between 
the Unions and Socialism. 

Modern Political Socialism made its appearance in 
America some years after Utopian Socialism had prac- 
tically died out. The movements were totally inde- 
pendent of each other, and yet, of course, the public 
attention which had been developed by the communal 
experiments led to a trend of thought in the direction 
of Scientific Socialism. Unlike Trade Unionism, So- 
cialism was foreign in its origin. The movements in 
New York in 1868-9, which were the pioneers of pres- 
ent-day Socialism in America, were confined almost 
exclusively to foreigners by birth, Germans principally, 
with a sprinkling of other peoples of Continental origin. 
Nearly all of the first real Socialists in America were 
recently-arrived immigrants; but it has been noted that 
the second generation are seldom Socialists. This drift- 
ing away from Socialism on the part of "Americanized" 



SOCIALISM IN AMERICA 179 

Germans, for instance, is to be observed in the history of 
the 'Turner" organization, which originally was semi- 
Socialist. Socialism never became important as a pos- 
sible political or economic force until its personnel in 
organization, its methods, and its expression had be- 
come relatively "Americanized," although there are 
those who insist that Socialism proper can never be 
made adaptable to or be in harmony with "the Ameri- 
can spirit." 

Foreign in origin though it be (like many other 
things in America — some of them most excellent), the 
day has passed when that fact can prevent a fair con- 
sideration of the claims of Socialism by native Ameri- 
cans; and, indeed, it would be unwise and useless to 
fail to recognize that Socialism has at last secured a 
hold on the body-politic of America, with whatever 
errors, political, economic and ethical, may be attached 
to it. 

The "International" and American Socialists. 

As the outcome of a movement started in 1863, a 
convention of representatives of over sixty labor organ- 
izations was held at Baltimore, Md., in August, 1866, 
and the National Labor Union was formed. "The first 
and grand desideratum of the hour, in order to deliver 
the Labor of the country from the thraldom of capital, 
is the enactment of a law whereby eight hours shall 'be 
made to constitute a legal day's work," was the princi- 
pal resolution adopted at this convention. An attempt 
was made to induce the organization to enter the politi- 
cal field, but without success. Another effort was made 
at the next convention, in 1867, an d the president advo- 
cated the establishment of official relations with the 



180 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

European "International," a society which had for its 
object the uniting of the working classes of all nations 
in one Socialistic organization. But the National Labor 
Union decided not to join the • "International." How- 
ever, it adopted the following resolution: 

Whereas, The efforts of the working classes in Europe 
to acquire political power, to improve their social conditions, 
and to emancipate themselves from the bondage under which 
they were and still are, are gratifying proof of the progress 
of justice, enlightenment, and civilization; 

Resolved, That the National Labor Convention hereby de- 
clares its sympathies, and promises its co-operation to the 
organized workingmen of Europe in their struggle against 
political and social injustice. 

At the next convention, held in New York in 1868, 
the Union became the National Reform Party, and 
definitely committed itself to political action. The presi- 
dent of this new party — the first real national political 
Labor party in America — was a very able man, Wil- 
liam H. Silvis, who was the President of the Iron 
Holders' National Union, and one of the founders of 
the National Labor Union. He announced that the 
object of the Labor Reform Party, as a workingmen's 
party, was to get control of Congress and the several 
State Legislatures. As showing the necessity of the 
new party, he declared that: "The working people of 
our nation, white and black, male and female, are sink- 
ing to a condition of serfdom. Even now a slavery 
exists in our land worse than ever existed under the 
old slave system." At the fourth convention of the 
National Labor Union (or, as it was sometimes called, 
National Labor Party, or National Reform Party), in 
1869, it was decided to send an official representative 



SOCIALISM IN AMERICA 181 

to the convention of the "International" to be held at 
Basle, Switzerland, in 1870, and A. C. Cameron was 
sent as delegate. It seems that Mr. Cameron did not 
participate in the deliberations, but contented himself 
with giving grossly exaggerated accounts of the strength 
of the organization he represented, he claiming, among 
other things, that he was the delegate of 800,000 Ameri- 
can workingmen who had adopted the principles of the 
"International. " At the convention of the National 
Labor Union at Cincinnati, in August, 1870, the follow- 
ing resolution was adopted: "The National Labor 
Union declares its adherence to the principles of the 
International Workingmen's Association, and expects to 
join the said association in a short time." But it never 
joined the "International ;" on the contrary, it finally 
became non-existent as a separate organization; several 
attempts to revive it were made, but without success. 
The first body in America to be directly affiliated with 
the "International" was a German independent political- 
labor organization called The Social Party of New York 
and Vicinity. After making one campaign (and it was 
a very insignificant one) it dissolved, and from its mem- 
bership was formed the General German Labor Asso- 
ciation (Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiterverein). The 
principles of this association were "strictly Marxian," 
and Hillquit says that the latest phase of the Socialist 
movement in this country may be said to date from the 
organization of that society. In 1869 ^ was admitted 
to the National Labor Union, and in the same year it 
also joined the European "International," becoming 
"Section 1 of New York." The previous year a section 
of the "International" had been established by German 
Socialists in San Francisco; in 1869 a German section 



182 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

was formed at Chicago; and in 1870 a French Section 
was organized at New York. 

The "International" Transferred to New York. 

In the meantime, there was trouble in the "Interna- 
tional" itself, growing out of the struggle for control by 
Marx and Bakounin (the Russian Anarchist). Al- 
though Marx spoke of the beaten communards of Paris 
as the "glorious vanquished," he was comparatively a 
conservative at the period of 1871 ; and at the congress 
of the "International" at The Hague, Holland, in 1872, 
Bakounin was "excommunicated" by Marx and his fol- 
lowers because of his extreme views. But the situation 
on the Continent was not satisfactory to Marx; the 
United States looked encouraging as a field of opera- 
tions just at that time; and so Marx transferred the 
General Council of the organization to New York. Its 
career in America was brief and disastrous. There had 
been quarrels among the American sections before the 
General Council came to New York; the different racial 
elements were discordant, and the "International" be- 
came the "dumping ground" for all the fads and "crank- 
isms" of the day. Yet for a time it spread; the labor 
troubles of 1873 were largely manipulated by the ex- 
tremists of the society; and from its activity in Chicago 
there grew a new Socialist party — the Labor Party of 
Illinois. In April, 1874, the second national convention 
of the American sections of the "International" was 
held at Philadelphia. The Socialists of the country 
were in a demoralized condition, and an organization 
had been started in New York as a rival to the Interna- 
tional — the Social Democratic Workingmen's Party of 
North America. At the Philadelphia convention the 



SOCIALISM IN AMERICA 183 

Federal Council of the American sections was abolished ; 
its functions were turned over to the General Council 
(which was international in scope), and it was now 
established at New York. The "International" forbade 
any member belonging to any other party, but an- 
nounced that it would not itself enter into a campaign 
until it could effect some result. The convention, which 
was held at Philadelphia, Pa., on July 15, 1876, was the 
last : it was a most melancholy funeral of an organiza- 
tion which in its hey-day had made "tyrants tremble" 
by the thunders of its resolutions and its proclamations. 
There were only eleven delegates present — ten repre- 
senting the United States, and one representing Ger- 
many. The General Council was abolished, and that 
was the end of the once great International Working- 
men's Association. Before adjourning, the handful of 
delegates adopted what was intended to be an encour- 
aging manifesto to the working men of the world, and 
it wound up with the Marxian injunction : "Prole- 
tarians of all countries, Unite!" 

The Socialist Labor Party. 

The origin of the Socialist Labor Party — which is 
still in existence, and had a candidate for the Presi- 
dency of the United States at the election of 1908 — 
is owing to the squabbles which took place among the 
sections of the "International." On the 4th of July, 
1874, the Social Democratic Workingmen's Party of 
North America was formed by a number of seceding 
members. In 1875 one °f ^ s m ost prominent members 
was R. A. Parsons, who later paid the penalty of his 
life for his share in the tragedy of the Chicago "Hay- 
market" demonstration. In July, 1876, there was held 



i8 4 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

a convention of representatives of a number of Labor- 
Socialist organizations, among them being delegates 
from the Social Workingmen's Association. The sev- 
eral organizations consolidated under the name of the 
Workingmen's Party of the United States; and in 1877, 
at the second convention of that party, held at Newark, 
N. J., the name was changed to the Socialist Labor 
Party of the United States. 

For the first time in their history the Socialists of 
America now had a party which had shown any cohe- 
rency; but already even this party is giving evidence 
that it will soon be nothing but a name, and will have 
to give up what is now really the ghost of an organiza- 
tion. The first great difficulty was in connection with 
the attempt to "Americanize" the movement, for there 
was a strong popular feeling — which still exists, even 
among workingmen — that Socialism is alien to Ameri- 
can institutions and ideas. 

A number of members of the Socialist Labor Party 
left it and formed a Revolutionary Club in New York, 
the principles of which were a mixture of German 
Social Democracy and Anarchism. Other revolution- 
ary clubs were formed, and a convention of these clubs 
was held at Chicago, in October, 1881. After a period 
of depression caused by the defections of anarchistically 
inclined members, the Socialist Labor Party had a more 
favorable outlook; following the shock incidental to the 
Chicago drama there was a revival of genuine Social- 
ism, and in 1900 the organization reached its zenith. 
It had taken part in several local and state compaigns, 
and in 1892 it for the first time nominated candidates 
for President and Vice-President of the United States. 
Following are the Socialist Labor Party candidates for 



SOCIALISM IN AMERICA 185 

President of the United States and the votes cast in the 
respective years : 

1892 — Simon Wing . . . . . . .,. . . .,. .21,164; 

1896 — Charles H. Matchett 36,274; 

1900 — Jos. H. Malloney 39>739; 

1904 — Charles H. Corrigan.. ... . . .31,249; 

1908 — August Gillhaus ......... .32,000. 

The principal declaration in the platform of the So- 
cialist Labor Party is as follows: 

With the founders of this republic we hold that the true 
theory of politics is that the machinery of government must 
be owned and controlled by the whole people; but in the 
light of our industrial development we hold, furthermore, 
that the true theory of economics is that the machinery 
of production must likewise belong to the people in com- 
mon. 

The Socialist Labor Party calls upon "the wage 
workers of the United States, and upon all other honest 
citizens," to organize into "a class-conscious body," so 
that an end may be put to the present barbarous class- 
struggle, "by the abolition of classes, the restoration 
of the land, and of all the means of production, trans- 
portation, and distribution to the people as a collective 
body, and the substitution of the Co-operative Common- 
wealth for the present state of planless production, 
industrial war, and social disorder." 

There are two special reasons why the Socialist Labor 
Party has failed to secure a large membership: (1) It 
has been too rigidly Marxian, and the profound revolu- 
tionary philosophy of that system does not appeal to 
the native American mind any more than it does to the 
British; and (2) it has been unsympathetic towards and 



186 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

often hostile to Trade Unions; and to the intensely 
practical American workingman the advantages of 
Trade Unionism are far more apparent, direct and per- 
sonal, than are the supposititious benefits to be derived 
from the nebulous theories of Socialism. 

The Socialist Party. 

The history of the Socialist Party (Social Demo- 
cratic Party) is a brief and simple one up to the present 
stage. It is a development from the American Railway 
Union, which was formed in June, 1893, principally 
through the efforts of Eugene V. Debs. After the 
disastrous strike of the Pullman employees in 1894, with 
which the Railway Union was identified — and the fail- 
ure of which practically caused its collapse — the Social 
Democracy of America was formed in 1897, at the final 
convention of the Railway Union. At the first conven- 
tion of the Social Democracy of America, held at Chi- 
cago in June, 1898, some of the delegates indulged in 
what seems to be a mania in American labor-reform 
movements — they "bolted/' and the "bolters" formed a 
new organization with a similar name — the Social Demo- 
cratic Party. It was a party of avowed Socialism, for 
by this time Eugene V. Debs had become a follower of 
Marx, and he got to be the leader of the new Social 
Democratic Party, as he had been of the Railway Union. 
In July, 1901, an amalgamation was effected between 
the Social Democratic Party and another organization, 
first called the Rochester (N. Y.) Socialist Labor Party, 
and afterward also claiming the name of the Social 
Democratic Party; and the united organization of these 
two rival bodies (both at that time bearing the name 
of the Social Democratic Party) was given the name of 



SOCIALISM IN AMERICA 187 

the Socialist Party. It is this party whose candidate 
Mr. Debs has been several times for the Presidency of 
the United States; and it is the only organization pro- 
fessing international, "class-conscious," Scientific So- 
cialism which has firmly established itself and developed 
any considerable strength in America. It has a large 
and growing number of newspapers, weekly, semi- 
monthly, and monthly journals and reviews. While 
professedly Marxian, it is becoming increasingly Oppor- 
tunist or Constructive. 

The first plank of the platform of the Socialist Party 
is as follows : 

The Socialist party of America, in national convention 
assembled, reaffirms its adherence to the principles of inter- 
national Socialism, and declares its aim to be the organiza- 
tion of the working class and those in sympathy with it 
into a political party, with the object of conquering the pow- 
ers of government and using them for the purpose of trans- 
forming the present system of private ownership of the 
means of production and distribution into collective owner- 
ship by the entire people. 

But while aiming at the ultimate collective owner- 
ship of the means of production and distribution, the 
Socialist Party supports all active efforts of the working 
class to better its condition and to elect Socialists to 
political offices, in order to facilitate the attainment of 
this end. As such means it advocates : 

1. The public ownership of all means of transportation and 
communication and all other public utilities, as well as of 
all industries, controlled by monopolies, trusts, and com- 
bines. No part of the revenue of such industries to be ap- 
plied to the reduction of taxes on property of the capitalist 
class, but to be applied wholly to the increase of wages and 
shortening of the hours of labor of the employees, to the 



i88 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

improvement of the service and diminishing the rates to 
the consumers. 

2. The progressive reduction of the hours of labor and 
the increase of wages in order to decrease the share of 
the capitalist and increase the share of the worker in the 
product of labor. 

3. State or national insurance of working people in case 
of accidents, lack of employment, sickness, and want in old 
age; the funds for this purpose to be collected from the 
revenue of the capitalist class, and to be administered under 
the control of the working class. 

4. The inauguration of a system of public industries, pub- 
lic credit to be used for that purpose in order that the 
workers be secured the full product of their labor. 

5. The education of all, state and municipal aid for books, 
clothing and food. 

6. Equal civil and political rights for men and women. 

7. The initiative and referendum, proportional represen- 
tation, and the right of recall of representatives by their 
constituents. 

But in advocating these measures as steps in the overthrow 
of capitalism and the establishment of the co-operative com- 
monwealth, we warn the working class against the so-called 
public-ownership movements as an attempt of the capitalist 
class to secure governmental control of public utilities for 
the purpose of obtaining greater security in the exploitation 
of other industries and not for the amelioration of the con- 
ditions of the working class. 

Beginners in the study of Socialism are often per- 
plexed over the fact that while its adherents rail at the 
capitalists who own trusts and trade combinations, yet 
they are tolerant and often commendatory of the col- 
lective principle and competition-destroying effect of the 
trusts and combinations themselves. The Socialist Party 
in their general statement of principles at the conven- 
tion of 1908 give the explanation of this apparent 
anomaly, they saying: "The basis for such transforma- 



SOCIALISM IN AMERICA 189 

tion (from private to collective ownership) is rapidly 
developing within present capitalist society. The fac- 
tory system, with its complex machinery and minute 
division of labor, is rapidly destroying all vestiges of 
individual production in manufacture. Modern produc- 
tion is already very largely a collective and social pro- 
cess. The great trusts and monopolies which have 
sprung up in recent years have organized the work and 
management of the principal industries on a national 
scale, and have fitted them for collective use and opera- 
tion." 

Young as is the Socialist movement in America, prop- 
erly speaking, it has already encountered a form of 
opposition which the Socialists of Europe — and par- 
ticularly of England within the last few years- — have 
found to be the most powerful which they have so far 
encountered since Marx and Engels issued their Cotn- 
munist Manifesto in 1848. Reference is here made to 
the charge that Marxist Socialism is atheistic and im- 
moral. The Socialist Party of America recognize the 
seriousness of this charge, for in their declaration of 
1908 they say: "The Socialist Party is primarily an 
economic and political movement. It is not concerned 
with matters of religious belief. " [It is to be observed, 
however, that the declaration is qualified by the word 
"primarily. "] 

The convention extended the former "general de- 
mands/' by including the employment by the govern- 
ment of the workless in building schools; reforestration 
and reclamation of cut-over and waste lands; the build- 
ing of canals, etc. ; the loaning of public money tq 
municipalities, without interest, for public works; the 
contribution of public funds to Trade Unions ; the fxten- 



190 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

sion of the public domain to include mines, quarries, oil 
wells, forests, and water-powers ; and demanded that the 
occupancy and use of land should be the sole title to 
possession. Its political demands included the exten- 
sion of inheritance taxes; a graduated income tax; and 
"the abolition of the power usurped by the Supreme 
Court of the United States to pass upon the constitu- 
tionality of legislation enacted by Congress. National 
laws to be repealed or abrogated only by act of Con- 
gress or by a referendum of the whole people." De- 
mands were also made that the constitution of the 
United States should be made amendable by majority 
vote; that all judges be elected by the people for short 
terms; that the power to issue injunctions be curbed by 
immediate legislation; and for the free administration 
of justice. 

The Socialist Party has regular state organizations in 
every state of the Union with the exception of a few 
of the Southern States. Ever since 1899 it has elected a 
small number of state and local officials, particularly in 
the Middle and far- Western states. 

As it accepts the platform and principles of the Inter- 
national Socialist movement, the American Socialist 
Party is represented at the International Socialist Bu- 
reau, at Brussels (the executive department of the suc- 
cessor of the old "International"), and takes part in the 
congresses of the International Party of Socialism. 

Following are the number of votes cast in the Presi-* 
dential elections for Mr. Debs, as the candidate of the 
Social Party: 

1900 : 87,814; 

1904 402,283 ; 

1908 . t 482,000. 



SOCIALISM IN AMERICA 191 

It should be remembered that there are two Socialist 
Parties in the United States, and that the other, the 
Socialist Labor Party, cast 32,000 votes for its candidate 
for the Presidency last year. If this number be added 
to the votes cast for Mr. Debs, it shows that in 1908 
there were 514,000 Socialist voters in the United States 
— about one Socialist in every twenty-eight of the entire 
number of voters in the country. 

In the various State and local elections held in 1910 
the Socialist vote was largely increased; in some States 
it was doubled. The aggregate of the votes for Con- 
gressmen was 720,000. 

In the local elections of November, 191 1, throughout 
the country, there were large Socialist gains. In Ohio 
nine small towns elected Socialist Mayors, and in Colum- 
bus, the State capital, four Socialist members of Coun- 
cil were elected. It is difficult to say to what extent 
these victories were owing to the spread of real Social- 
ist sentiment among the voters. In nearly every instance 
there were special reasons for the consolidation of the 
votes of the members of Labor organizations; then the 
working people of the entire country had allowed Social- 
ist orators to inflame them by representing that the capi- 
talists and the Government were persecuting the Mc- 
Namara brothers, then under trial for dynamiting the 
office of the Times, of Los Angeles, Cal. ; and, further- 
more, there was a general spirit of discontent with 
existing economic and political conditions. A Socialist 
leader of Columbus (O.) frankly gives it as his opinion 
that of all the votes cast for Socialist candidates, only 
about one-third represented actual Socialist sentiment. 



IS* WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Anarchism in America. 

There have been several outbreaks of violence in 
America in connection with labor disputes which are 
generally described as "anarchistic" or "socialistic." 
The most dreadful of these deplorable incidents is asso- 
ciated with the "Haymarket" of Chicago. Another, of 
evil notoriety, is connected with a strike of miners in 
Colorado. 

Frankness compels the admission that violence is a 
more frequent accompaniment of Labor disputes in 
America than in Great Britain or Germany. But at 
the outset it should also be said that the real, representa- 
• tive leaders of organized Labor in America are as much 
opposed to violence and unlawful methods as are the 
present-day Labor leaders of Great Britain. 

While the American and the British love of law and 
order are the same fundamentally, there is in America, 
as compared with England, a more "rough-and-ready" 
method of action, not only on the part of the men on 
strike and of the employers also, but by the State 
authorities themselves, when — as often happens — they 
are called upon to suppress disorder. In America the 
police and the military sometimes use force in a man- 
ner and to a degree that would not be tolerated in Eng- 
land; and in that country there is no such body as 
"Pinkerton men." In the "good old days" there used 
to be a great deal of violence in trade disputes in Eng- 
land, and even to-day the British workingman out on a 
strike is not a "lamb" by any means; and the British 
Trade Unionist or Socialist is not conspicuous for his 
tolerance or consideration toward those who are not of 
his way of thinking — this fact being illustrated by out- 
rages by Welsh miners in 1909 and 1910, and by the 



SOCIALISM IN AMERICA 193 

sailors and dock laborers at the great shipping ports of 
England and Scotland in 191 1. 

Anarchism in the United States must be taken first 
as generally of alien conception, as only a passing phase 
of social conditions — as an incident of the moment, and 
largely of local environment, and also of individual 
rashness and folly. Properly speaking, it cannot be 
considered to be a development of genuine Socialism, 
much less of genuine Trade Unionism. Anarchism as a 
system, even philosophical Anarchism, may be said to 
be non-existent in America, as it is also not to be found 
in Great Britain. There are a few — and a very few — 
unpractical, dreamy, philosophical "arm-chair" Anarch- 
ists in America; but they are perfectly harmless. And 
there are also a few unhappy men, of both native and 
foreign birth, who probably are only restrained by the 
fear of the gallows from throwing an occasional bomb 
at some unpopular capitalist. But Anarchism as an 
organized, permanent system is practically a political 
and social impossibility in America. 

Chicago and Cincinnati have the unenviable notoriety 
of being the recruiting grounds of the first active revo- 
lutionary anarchistic organization in America, outside 
of several clubs in New York, which latter appear to 
have been little more than societies for indulgence in 
beery symposiums. But the Anarchists of Chicago and 
Cincinnati evidently thought that they meant business, 
for they organized several military companies under the 
name of Educational and Defensive Societies (Lehr 
and Wehr Vereine). The national committee of the So- 
cialist Labor Party repudiated these mischievous "side- 
shows" of their organization, and requested all genuine 
Socialists to withdraw from them. In November, 1880, 



194 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

some seceders from the Socialist Labor Party formed 
Revolutionary Clubs at New York and a number of 
the other large cities of the country. One was formed 
at Chicago, and at its head were Paul Grottkau, August 
Spies and Albert R. Parsons. In October, 1881, these 
Revolutionary Clubs reorganized themselves into the 
Revolutionary Socialist Party. In October, 1883, a joint 
convention of Anarchists and revolutionist Socialists 
was held at Pittsburg, and the International Working 
People's Association was formed. A fiery "proclama- 
tion" was issued, its authors probably being conceited 
enough to imagine that the document would become as 
historic as the Communist Manifesto of Marx and En- 
gels. This "proclamation" stated the object of the 
movement to be : "The destruction of the existing class 
government by all means, i. e., by energetic, implacable, 
revolutionary, and international action," and the estab- 
lishment of a system of industry based on "the free 
exchange of equivalent products between the producing 
organizations themselves and without the intervention 
of middlemen and profit-making." 

Unfortunately for law and order and the good name 
of Trade Unionism and of Socialism proper, there had 
just come over from the old world the Prince of An- 
archy — the incarnation of revolution against authority 
— John Most, who had recently finished a term in an 
English prison for lauding the assassins of the Russian 
Emperor and inciting others to follow their example; 
and he stirred up the mess that was brewing in the 
witches' cauldron at Chicago. 

May 1, 1886, was the day fixed for a general strike 
throughout the United States and Canada to gain the 
eight-hour day, this step having been determined upon 



SOCIALISM IN AMERICA 195 

two years previously by the Federation of Trades and 
Labor Unions. During these two years the spirit of 
unrest and discontent had been growing among the 
working people, and it was worse in Chicago than any- 
where else. In that city was a section of the American 
International (not, however, connected with the old 
European "International"), and it had become an an- 
archistic organization. The "Information Bureau" of 
the Anarchists was at Chicago, and there were three 
anarchistic papers published in that city — two German, 
with Justus Schwab and August Spies as principal 
writers, and A. Fischer as foreman ; and one in the Eng- 
lish language, with Albert R. Parsons as the editor. 
It is difficult after this lapse of time subsequent to the 
affair to understand how sane men could have acted as 
the Chicago Anarchists did; and some responsibility 
must rest upon organized Labor and its so-called leaders. 
The working people got stirred up to a great pitch 
of excitement; meetings were held, and the most incen- 
diary language was used; and the Anarchist papers 
raved as if only civil war could prevent the rights of 
the wage earners from being taken away. At one meet- 
ing, held near a factory, violence was manifested against 
some non-union workers. The police were sent for and 
came in large numbers, and volleys of stones greeted 
them, they replying with their revolvers. Some pistol 
shots were returned by the mob. At this the police 
fired a fusillade, and four of the crowd were killed and 
a great many were wounded. Then the Anarchists 
issued a circular headed "Revenge!" The workingmen 
were urged to arm themselves, and on the next evening 
a meeting was held for the purpose of "branding the 
murder of our fellow-workers." The meeting proper 



196 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

seems to have been over, but at a later gathering, which 
was being addressed by an Anarchist, a large force of 
police arrived, and the commanding officer ordered the 
crowd to disperse. A dynamite bomb was thrown from 
an alley between two companies of police, but, strange 
to say, only one was killed, although a number were 
injured. Then a regular pitched battle occurred be- 
tween the crowd and the police, and half a dozen police- 
men and four workingmen were killed, and a great 
many on both sides were wounded. It has never been 
definitely settled who threw the bomb, but a number 
of the agitators were indicted, they being charged with 
the murder of the policeman who was killed by the 
bomb. August Spies, Samuel Fielden, Michael Schwab, 
Albert R. Parsons, Adolph Fischer, George Engel, and 
Louis Lingg were found guilty of murder, and the pen- 
alty was fixed at death. On an appeal to the Governor 
of Illinois for clemency, the sentences of Schwab and 
Fielden were commuted to life imprisonment. Lingg 
committed suicide in his cell by exploding a cartridge 
in his mouth. Spies, Parsons, Fischer, and Engel were 
hanged on November nth, 1887. These men had un- 
doubtedly worked themselves up to such a condition of 
mind that they really believed they were Labor's mar- 
tyrs; and it is said that they all died bravely. As the 
noose was placed around the neck of Spies, he said: 
"The time will come when our silence in the grave will 
be more eloquent than our speeches !" The last words 
of Parsons were: "Let the voice of the people be 
heard!" "This is the happiest moment of my life!" 
exclaimed Fischer, as he ascended the scaffold. Six* 
years afterwards, John P. Altgeld, who had been elected 
Governor of the State, granted an absolute pardon to 



SOCIALISM IN AMERICA 19? 

Samuel Fielden, Oscar Neebe, and Michael Schwab, 
and in doing so he took occasion to denounce what he 
termed the unfair and partial methods of the trial judge. 
The latter (Judge Gary) defended the verdict in a long 
article in the Century Magazine. In this article the 
judge pointed out that the defendants were found guilty 
and sentenced not because they were Anarchists, but 
because they were parties to murder. "The conviction 
proceeded upon the ground that they had generally, by 
speech and print, advised large classes to commit mur- 
der; and had left the commission, the time and place, 
and when to the individual will and whim or caprice. 
. . . They incited, advised, encouraged the throwing 
of the bomb that killed the policeman not by addressing 
the bomb-thrower specially, . . . but by general ad- 
dresses to readers and hearers." 

The Moyer-Haywood Murder Case. 

A score of years after the awful affair at Chicago, 
there were a most sensational series of outrages in Colo- 
rado and elsewhere in the Western mining States, result- 
ing in the trial of three Labor leaders for murder. In 
1899 the Legislature of Colorado had passed an eight- 
hour law for the miners of that state, but the Supreme 
Court declared it unconstitutional. In 1902, however, 
the miners were powerful enough to secure the passage 
by the people of a constitutional amendment making it 
mandatory on the Legislature to pass an eight-hour 
law. But the succeeding Legislature failed to do so. 
Thereupon the miners of Colorado struck for eight 
hours and for the settlement of some grievances. There 
undoubtedly was violence upon the part of individual 
miners, even though the Union were not directly or 



198 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

officially implicated. The mine-owners, on their part, 
were not over-gentle in their methods, and they evicted 
a number of the miners from their cottages. The state 
troops were called out, and the strike was "broken/' 

On December 30th, 1905, Frank Steunenberg, the 
former Governor of Idaho, an adjoining State, was 
assassinated by means of an infernal machine placed at 
the front gate of his residence. Governor Steunenberg 
had had some unpleasant experiences with the miners of 
his own State, and the common supposition was that 
his murder was an act of revenge. Some weeks after- 
wards four leaders of the Western Federation of Miners 
were arrested, charged with the murder, they being 
Charles H. Moyer (the President of the Federation of 
Miners), William D. Haywood (the Secretary), and 
two other prominent leaders named Pettibone and St. 
John. [Incidentally it may be noted that the Western 
Federation of Miners has declared for Socialism.] The 
principal witness against the accused was a self-con- 
fessed professional murderer — for pay! The story he 
told was one of the wildest and most extraordinary ever 
told in a criminal court. In effect his evidence was that 
the officials of the Miners' Union had gone into the 
business of wholesale murder, and had employed him 
as one of their instruments. The trial was in many 
respects the most remarkable ever held in any civilized 
country. The defence was first a plea of innocence, and 
secondly a counter-charge which in substance was that 
the mine-owners of Colorado were a set of blood-thirsty 
wretches, without conscience, who, in order to get rid 
of the labor-leaders, had employed "agents provoca- 
teurs." A verdict of not guilty was rendered. 

One of the most sensational incidents connected with 



SOCIALISM IN AMERICA 199 

the trial was the denunciation of the defendants, while 
the case was still sub judice, by Mr. Roosevelt, the 
President of the United States, he denouncing them as 
"undesirable citizens" — a term which at once became 
notorious. 

The McNamara Outrages. 

The year 191 1 will always be memorable in the annals 
of American organized Labor because of the arrest and 
subsequent confession of three wretches — two brothers 
named McNamara and another man named McManigal 
— guilty of the awful crime of blowing up buildings and 
bridges with dynamite. In the specific case for which 
the McNamara brothers are now in the penitentiary, 
twenty-one lives were lost by the explosion of the office 
of the Times newspaper, at Los Angeles, Cal. The 
dynamiters professed to be acting in behalf of a trade 
union organization, their purpose being to punish and 
to terrorize the employers of non-union labor. At pres- 
ent writing it is undetermined to what extent the Trade 
Unions were officially responsible. It is proper to say 
that after the McNamara brothers had confessed, rep- 
resentative Labor leaders and many Trade Unions bit- 
terly denounced the crime and the perpetrators. But it 
is also proper to say that many of these same leaders 
and organizations had vehemently and recklessly pro- 
claimed the innocence of the murderers, although all 
the evidence in sight was plainly to the effect that there 
was at least grave reason to believe them guilty. This 
criticism also applies to the Socialists — who are always 
eager to applaud any outrage on person or property so 
long as it affords an opportunity to denounce "capital- 
ists" or "capitalism" or the constituted authorities. The 



200 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

plain truth is that a number of the principal Labor and 
Socialist leaders have incurred a fearful responsibility 
by stirring up class hatred and by rushing to the de- 
fence of men charged with outrages, if those charged 
happen to belong to Labor or Socialist organizations. 
Such a reprehensible attitude is the natural result — as 
has been shown recently in England as well as in Amer- 
ica — of the "class-conscious" doctrine taught by Social- 
ists and now unfortunately widely held by Trade Union- 
ists. And yet the fact remains that the vast body of 
American Trade Unionists are law-abiding. 

Present Outlook. 

While Socialism in America has not yet reached the 
period of manhood in experience and wisdom, Trade 
Unionism in this country is comparatively in its old 
age as to policy and methods. The present relation- 
ship between Socialism and Trade Unionism in America 
is much like that which prevailed in England fifteen 
or twenty years ago. Socialism in England was noth- 
ing but a "cult" until it gobbled up Trade Unionism — 
or gently absorbed it by what Mr. Hardie unctuously 
styles an "alliance." Since then Socialism has become 
the most active — and certainly the noisiest — factor in 
British politics, and proportionately to its numerical 
strength, the most powerful group as represented in 
Parliament. 

As the case stands at present, the majority of Ameri- 
can Trade Unionists — and especially the most prominent 
and trusted leaders — are opposed to independent politi- 
cal activity as a general proposition, although there is 
an acceptance of the policy of aiding friends and punish- 
ing enemies by means of the ballot; and then apart 



SOCIALISM IN AMERICA 201 

from this, it is probably true that the majority of. Ameri- 
can Trade Unionists are personally opposed to Social- 
ism as a doctrine. But be this as it may, there can be 
no doubt that at present the majority sentiment of 
American Trade Unionists is opposed to an alliance 
with organized Socialism; still, there is a growing ten- 
dency to make common cause. 

On the other hand, the prevailing sentiment among 
American Socialists seems to be one of opposition to 
any alliance with the Trade Unionists, or to a reorgan- 
ization into a "Labor Party," similar to the rather com- 
plicated combination of that name which has recently 
been cutting such a wide swath in British political and 
Parliamentary affairs. There has been a discussion in 
the International Socialist Review (Chicago) as to the 
orthodoxy of the British Labor-Socialist Party, and par- 
ticularly as to that of the originator of the organization, 
J. Keir Hardie, M. P. In summing up the case this 
organ of American Marxism expressed itself as follows, 
and there can be little doubt that it speaks with author- 
ity on this point: 

Whether the Labor Party of England is a benefit to the 
revolutionary movement of the world is a question which 
most concerns English Socialists and may safely be left 
to them. But whether the Socialist Party of America should 
encourage the formation of a Labor Party here and become 
a part of it, is a vital question to us. To this question the 
Review's answer is an emphatic NO. For the American 
Trade Unions to-day are as yet conservative rather than revo- 
lutionary. They are too much concerned with holding what 
little advantages skilled laborers still have over unskilled 
laborers, to realize that the important thing for the working 
class is to get control of the machinery of production and 
keep the full value of what they produce, 



202 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

So long as the Unions take this position, an alliance with 
them would be a denial of the revolutionary aims of the 
Socialist Party. It would be suicidal. It would show that 
we, as a party, deserved to die. It would put us on the 
scrap-heap, to be replaced by some new revolutionary party, 
made up of men with clearer heads and stiffer backbones. 

However strong this argument may be from a Social- 
ist standpoint, it seems clear from an independent sur- 
vey that the Trade Unionists hold the key to the situa- 
tion — that the American Socialist Party will never be- 
come a serious political force until it comes to some 
understanding with organized Labor. There are influ- 
ences now at work, beyond the control of the present 
leaders of the two movements, which will very likely 
eventuate in a "coming together," although the precise 
form of the coalition may, and probably will, differ from 
that of the British Labor Party; for Socialism in Amer- 
ica, in order to become a real, active power in politics, 
must abandon the pretense of "Internationalism," and 
must become American in characteristics of structure as 
an organization, as also in peculiarities of sentiment and 
aims. 

A few years ago Prof. Werner Sombart, a well- 
known German Sociologist, came to America. On his 
return to Europe he published a work entitled "Why 
there is no Socialism in the United States," and he 
closed by saying: 

All the factors that have up to this time retarded the evolu- 
tion of Socialism in the United States are on the point 
of vanishing, or of changing into their contraries, and, as a 
consequence, Socialism will, in all likelihood, during the 
next generation attain in the Union its highest development. 



CHAPTER X 

BRITISH SOCIALISM 

The Most Active Force in England. 

The most active political and the most potent eco- 
nomic force in England to-day is Socialism. It has 
passed the mere missionary and propaganda stage: it 
now does things, and makes "the most powerful govern- 
ment in British history'' do things. It has permeated 
all classes of British society. There are not only "So- 
cialists of the Chair" (University professors inclined to 
radical views), but there are Socialists of the drawing- 
room, and of the pulpit; there are organizations of So- 
cialists in several departments of the public service, 
and also among the school teachers, and the women, 
and even in the medical professions; and, most remark- 
able of all, there are Socialist churches and Sunday- 
schools ! And yet the present wide-sweeping Socialism 
of England, theoretical as well as practical, is distinc- 
tively a "class movement/' avowedly for the special bene- 
fit of the manual workers — the "proletariat," as it is now 
proper to call them, according to Socialist nomencla- 
ture. The organized workers of Great Britain (this 
does not include Ireland) have become saturated with 
a belief that nearly all wealth represents so much plun- 
der, stolen from them; that Labor can never secure 
the rewards to which it is entitled until all capital and 

203 



254 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

all productive enterprises, and also the land, are owned 
by the community; that it is the duty of the State to 
provide work, with short hours and big pay; and that 
if the State cannot find work under these conditions it 
is bound, at any rate, to see that everybody be given 
comfortable maintenance. It is very doubtful, however, 
whether there is any general intelligent appreciation 
among the British proletariat of the actual philosophy 
of genuine Marxian Socialism. 

Although the Socialist vote in Great Britain is not 
nearly as large as it is in Germany, yet it has more 
direct and indirect influence in legislative matters than 
in the latter country. This is true not only of the na- 
tional Parliaments of the two countries, but of munici- 
pal and other local bodies. The present British Liberal 
Government has passed more Socialistic legislation than 
any other Administration in British history has done; 
and for a period of years, until very recently, it seemed 
as if the British municipalities had plunged headlong 
into Socialism. 

Characteristics. 

There is a distinctive, national, British Socialism, not- 
withstanding the so-called "ultimate goal" of Interna- 
tional Socialism (with which it has recently formally 
affiliated) — the Collective Commonwealth. The over- 
whelming majority of men who call themselves Social- 
ists in Great Britain are Fabian Opportunists; and the 
Marxian, revolutionary, philosophical Socialists are a 
comparatively small and unimportant minority. The 
two schools do not get along very harmoniously. The 
difference between the two parties — for in one sense that 
is what they really are — is something like that between 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 205 

the Socialist Party (of which Mr. Debs is the recog- 
nized head) and the Socialist Labor Party (of which 
Daniel de Leon is the head), in the United States — only 
the difference is more accentuated in Great Britain. 

The prevailing school of British Socialism takes all 
it can get from organized society — that is, from the Im- 
perial Parliament and the local legislative and adminis- 
trative authorities. Its unwritten motto is, "Half a loaf 
is better than no bread;" and it prefers "frequent spoils 
and victories" to the "all-or-nothing" programme of the 
Marxian Strict Constructionists. But the British So- 
cialists, much as they have got, are as dissatisfied as. 
they were when they first started out on their crusade 
against the present "capitalistic system." For the time 
being they are willing to compromise, but they will not 
accept any compromise as a finality; and they agree, 
in an academic sense, with the Strict Constructionists, 
that the ultimate goal is the absolute destruction of 
not only Capitalism but of Individualism — at least, of 
Individualism as it is generally understood. The char- 
acteristic spirit of British Socialism is Compromise and 
Opportunism. It differs from the German, particularly, 
in that it lays little stress on rigid and hard-set formu- 
las; and in this there is shown a characteristic differ- 
ence between the British and the German peoples. The 
hard-and-fast Marxians of this country, as well as in 
Germany, and in England itself, often raise the question 
as to the orthodoxy of British Socialism ; but the British 
people do not care much for names so long as they get 
the things. 

Karl Kautsky, the editor of Die Neue Zeitung (the 
leading German Socialist review), and the successor of 
Engels as the compiler of the posthumous writings of 



206 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Karl Marx, appreciates what a powerful factor compro- 
mise is in social and economic evolution, for he says 
(Ethics and Materialistic Conception of History) : "So 
it seems to be a general law of social development, that 
countries which are pioneers in the economic develop- 
ment are tempted to put compromise in the place of 
radical solutions." 

Engels, with all his contempt for British "respecta- 
bility" and conservatism, and his over-optimism as to 
the early establishment of the Co-operative Common- 
wealth in his native Germany, recognized that the Eng- 
lishman, although not a doctrinaire, generally gets that 
which he really wants in legislation. And, perhaps that 
is because of the very fact that he is not a doctrinaire, 
but only a practical Opportunist. In his introduction to 
Socialism, Utopian and Scientific, Engels says : 

. . . But for all that the English working class is mov- 
ing, as even Professor Brentano has sorrowfully had to 
report to his brother Katheder-Socialists. It moves like 
all things in England, with a slow and measured step, with 
hesitation here, with more or less unfruitful, tentative at- 
tempts there; it moves now and then with an over-cautious 
mistrust of the name of Socialism, while it gradually absorbs 
the substance; and the movement spreads and seizes one 
layer of the workers after another. . . . And if the 
pace of the movement is not up to the impatience of some 
people, let them not forget that it is the working class which 
keeps alive the finest qualities of the English character, and 
that, if a step in advance is once gained in England, it is, 
as a rule, never lost afterwards. 

The above was written in 1892, and since then there 
has been a marvellous development of Socialism among 
the English workingmen. 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 207 

English Socialism has, therefore, been modified in 
accordance with the English temperament, as Brougham 
Villiers says in The Socialist Movement in England, 
It is true, also, as that brilliant writer remarks, that "the 
belief that Socialism was essentially un-English had 
become prevalent, and continued, until the Labor suc- 
cesses of 1906." 

Socialism Essentially English in Origin. 

Yet Socialism in all its forms but one, the Anarch- 
istic, is really essentially English in origin — that is, it 
is more English than alien; and even though it is true 
that France contributed its genius to the conceptive 
idea of Utopian Christian and Scientific Socialism, yet 
the movement in England, along the same lines, was 
contemporaneous. More than any other countries, Eng- 
land and France are the birth-places of Modern Social- 
ism; nevertheless, it has become the custom in both 
America and England to look upon Socialism as pecu- 
liarly — indeed, almost exclusively — a German institution, 
and as having come full-fledged from the brain of Karl 
Marx. But to Marx must be given the credit of mak- 
ing into a scientific formula the crude Collectivism of 
Owen, and of logically applying and carrying to their 
conclusions the economic principles as to Capital and 
Labor laid down by Locke, Adam Smith, Ricardo, Bray, 
Thompson, Hall, and others — all Britishers. Marx was 
five years old when Ricardo died, and it is noteworthy 
that they were both of the House of Israel. "Without 
Ricardo there would have been no Marx," declares the 
learned Prof. Flint ; and he goes on to say : "The essen- 
tial content of the Marxian economics is the Ricardian 
economics. Marx received Ricardo's exposition of eco- 



2o8 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

nomics as generally correct, narrowed still further what 
was already too narrow in it, exaggerated what was 
excessive, and made applications of it which Ricardo 
had not f orescent Thomas Kirkup (than whom there 
is no more reliable authority) says in his History of 
Socialism, speaking of the Chartist agitation of 1837-54: 
"As regards the study of Socialism, the interest of this 
movement lies greatly in the fact that in its organs the 
doctrine of 'surplus value/ afterwards elaborated by 
Marx as the basis of his system, is broadly and emphat- 
ically enunciated. While the worker produces all the 
wealth, he is obliged to content himself with the meagre 
share necessary to support his existence, and the sur- 
plus goes to the capitalist, who, with the king, the 
priests, lords, esquires, and gentlemen, lives upon the 
labor of the working man." {Poor Man's Guardian, 
1835.) As Shakespeare did with history and romance, 
so did Marx with economics — he gathered from all 
sources; "his comprehensive head" absorbed, separated, 
analyzed, humanized, and scientifically systematized and 
elaborated the various and often diverse doctrines of 
universal economics — 

"Till, like great Jove, the leader, figuring in, 
Attunes to order the chaotic din." 

And now the economists are tearing Marxism to 
pieces; even the Marxians are denying the "funda- 
mentals !" 

Marx himself can be cited as an authority that the 
economics he scientifically formulated were not German 
in origin. In his preface (written at London in Janu- 
ary, 1873) to the second edition of Capital, he says: 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 209 

"To the present moment Political Economy in Germany 
is a foreign science. . . . Thus the soil whence Po- 
litical Economy springs was wanting. This 'science' 
had to be imported from England as a ready-made 
article; its German professors remained schoolboys." 
John Spargo makes it plain that the founder of Mod- 
ern Socialism was greatly indebted to the early English 
Economists and Socialists. In Socialism Spargo says: 

During the year 1845, when the history of the economic 
interpretation of history was absorbing his attention, Marx 
spent six weeks in England with his friend Engels, and be- 
came acquainted with the work of the Ricardian Socialists 
already referred to. Engels had been living in England about 
three years at this time, and had made an exhaustive investi- 
gation of industrial conditions there, and became intimately 
acquainted with the leaders of the Chartist movement. His 
fine library contained most of the works of contemporary 
writers, and it was thus that Marx came to know them. 

Foremost of this school of Socialists which had arisen, 
quite naturally, in the land where capitalism flourished at its 
best, were William Godwin, Charles Hall, William Thomp- 
son, John Gray, Thomas Hodgskin, and John Francis Bray. 
With the exception of Hall, of whose privately printed 
book, "The Effects of Civilization on the People of the Euro- 
pean States," 1805, he seems not to have known, Marx was 
familiar with the writings of all the foregoing, and his 
obligations to some of them, especially Thompson, Hodgskin, 
and Bray, were not slight. . . . Godwin's most important 
work, "An Inquiry Concerning Political Justice," appeared 
in 1793, and contains the germ of much that is called Marxian 
Socialism. In it may be found the broad lines of thought 
which marks much of our present-day Socialist teaching, 
especially the criticism of capitalist society. . . . Thomp- 
son wrote several works of a Socialist character . . . 
[and] must be regarded as one of the greatest precursors 
of Marx in the development of modern Socialist theory. 
Marx never claimed to have originated the term ["surplus 



210 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

value"]. It is to be found in the writings of earlier econo- 
mists than Thompson even. . . . Nor did Marx claim to 
be the first to distinguish surplus value. That had been 
done very clearly by many others, including Adam Smith. 
What is original in Marx is the explanation of the manner 
in which surplus value is produced. 

. . . The studious years spent in the reading room of 
the British Museum complete the anglicization of Marx. 
"Capital" is essentially an English work, the fact of its 
having been written in German, by a German writer, being 
merely incidental. No more distinctively English treatise 
on political economy was ever written, not even "The Wealth 
of Nations." Even the method and style of the book are, 
contrary to general opinion, much more distinctively English 
than German. . . . Marx belongs to the school of Petty, 
Smith, and Ricardo, and their work is the background of 
his. "Capital" was the child of English industrial conditions 
and English thought, born by chance upon German soil. 

Spargo goes at length into this matter, not only 
for the purpose of demonstrating that Marxian Social- 
ism is of English origin, but also to rebut the charge 
made by some critics that Marx stole the ideas with 
which his name is associated from the English Ricard- 
ians without acknowledgment. "As a matter of fact," 
says Spargo, "no economist of note ever quoted his 
authorities, or acknowledged his indebtedness to others, 
more generously than did Marx." 

John Ball, the First English Socialist. 

Brougham Villiers, in his Socialist Movement in Eng- 
land, agrees with Thorold Rogers (the noted statistician- 
economist), that wages and the general conditions of 
Labor, allowing for the price of food, were better in 
the Middle Ages than now ; but this is a contention dif- 
ficult to maintain. There was, in the Middle Ages, Vil- 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 211 

Hers claims, far more "organic Socialism in England 
than during the first three centuries of Protestantism. " 
He says that these Socialist ideas, after being popular 
throughout Christendom for centuries, for a time passed 
out ©f the minds of men. 

John Ball may be said to have been the first Eng- 
lish Socialist, as the term is understood now. Thorold 
Rogers says that Ball preached Christian Socialism; but 
he also preached something very much like the "class- 
struggle/' Revolutionary Socialism of Karl Marx, with- 
out its scientific basis. One very seldom, now-a-days, 
hears of John Ball, and yet Labor and Liberty owe him 
a vast debt. John Ball was known as "St. Mary's 
priest/' and the land-owners called him "the mad priest 
of Kent." He became the eloquent champion of the 
historic "Peasants' Revolt" of 1381. John Richard 
Green, in his History of the English People, says that 
"in the preaching of John Ball England first listened 
to the knell of feudalism and the declaration of the rights 
of man." Here is a sample from his preaching, and it 
sounds wonderfully like an extract from a speech by a 
Modern Socialist orator: 

I 

Good people, things will never be well in England so 
long as there be villeins [feudal serfs] and gentle folk. 
By what right are they whom we call lords greater folk than 
we? On what grounds have they deserved it? Why do they 
hold us in serfage? If we all came from the same father 
and mother, of Adam and Eve, how can they say or prove 
that they are better than we, if it be not that they make us 
gain for them by our toil what they spend in their pride? 
They are clothed in velvet, and warm in their furs and their 
ermines, while we are covered with rags. They have wine, 
spices and fine bread ; we have only oat cake and straw and 
water to drink. They have leisure and fine houses ; we have 



212 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

pain and labor, the rain and the wind in the fields. And 
yet it is of our toil that these men hold their estate. 

In 1 348- 1 382 Asia and Europe were scourged with 
the awful ''Black Death." It is said to have carried 
off 30,000,000 Europeans, and of the 4,000,000 which 
formed the population of England, more than half were 
swept away. At that time London had a population of 
120,000, and 100,000 were carried off by the plague. 
The reduction in the population had a great deal to do 
with the abolition of serfdom in England. Labor was 
at a high premium, the price of food rose greatly, and 
strikes followed. Then came "The Peasants' Revolt" 
of 1 38 1. The spirit of discontent was aggravated by a 
change in the "Statutes of Labor," fixing the price of 
labor at what it had been two years before the "Black 
Death," although the price of food had risen greatly. 
Still further was the discontent increased by the impo- 
sition of a poll-tax to pay the expenses of the war with 
France, the tax being the same for the poor as for the 
rich. The revolt of the peasants was led by Wat Tyler 
and Jack Straw. Ball had incited the people to revolt, 
and he was imprisoned, first in the jail at Maidstone, 
and then in the palace of the Archbishop of Canterbury. 
The populace at Canterbury were in sympathy with the 
movement, and they plundered the Archbishop's palace 
and released Ball. Headed by Ball and Tyler, the mob 
(for that is all it was) marched on to London, occupy- 
ing several towns on the way. They entered London 
with the torch, and burned the palace of the powerful 
John of Gaunt, and the hospital of St. John; plate and 
jewelry were smashed and destroyed, but nothing was 
stolen. The King parleyed with them, and by diplo- 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 2*3 

matic methods induced the rebels to lay down their 
arms and to return peaceably to their homes. While 
Tyler was holding converse with the King, under pro- 
tection of a "safe conduct/' he was treacherously stabbed 
to death by the Mayor of London, and that event 
brought about the collapse of the revolt of the peasants. 
John Ball attempted to rally them, but failed; and he 
was caught, hanged, drawn and quartered. Thus ended 
what is said to have been the only attempt of the peas- 
ants and artisans of England to effect a revolution by 
force. 

This revolt, although ending so ignominously, was 
one of the most historic events in the whole history of 
the English people, both in its causes and in its perma- 
nent results. The times were rough and bloody; hence, 
the methods of Ball and Tyler are in many respects 
repugnant to our ideas of how a popular agitation for 
reform should be carried on. But it would be grossly 
unfair, as well as absurd, to judge these men by present- 
day ethics. After making due allowance, it cannot be 
denied that John Ball had at heart the true spirit of a 
reformer and of a lover of the oppressed. 

William Morris, "poet, artist, and Socialist" — who, 
until he became a Socialist, confesses that he was only 
"the idle singer of an empty day" — has immortalized 
"the mad priest of Kent" in a prose-poem entitled "A 
Dream of John Ball." 

The "Industrial Revolution" in England. 

All authorities agree that the event, or rather devel- 
opment, which brought about the present Scientific So- 
cialism, was what is called the "Industrial Revolution;" 
and, indeed, Socialists claim that it was the "Industrial 



214 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Revolution" which has made Socialism necessary. The 
introduction of machinery, the establishment of the fac- 
tory system, and the "socialization" of labor — that is, 
the division of labor and the working in harmony of 
different groups of industrial laborers or artisans — was 
the "Industrial Revolution." This occurred at the close 
of the eighteenth century; and as England was then — 
and for some time afterwards — the "workshop of the 
world," it is natural that its effects, and particularly its 
bad features, should be seen first and with the greatest 
emphasis in that country. 

The independent, individual workman, owning his 
own means of production, disappeared with the aboli- 
tion of the guilds. There had been gradually growing 
up an industrial capitalist class; and the new system 
swept manufacturers into their hands. There came a 
new social order : On the one side Capitalism ; on the 
other side Proletarianism ; and as Morris and Bax put it 
in their joint work, "the workman, from being a ma- 
chine, was to become the auxiliary of a machine." The 
beginning of the "Industrial Revolution" was contem- 
poraneous with the invention of the spinning- jenny by 
Hargreaves in 1764; and "from thence to the utilization 
of steam as a motive force, and thence again to our own 
days, the stream of invention has been continuous." 
And concurrently with this stream has been an ever- 
increasing "socialization" of labor — and, therefore, ac- 
cording to the Socialist argument, an ever-increasing 
tendency to and necessity for Revolutionary Socialism — 
that is, for the collective ownership and operation by the 
State, or the community, of the means of production, 
distribution and exchange. 

Accepting Modern Socialism as of British origin, it 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 215 

may be said that its beginning was in 1817, when Robert 
Owen (then acting simply as a philanthropist) appeared 
before a committee of the British House of Commons, 
and presented a plan for a Socialistic community. Con- 
temporaneously with this action of Owen, Saint-Simon 
in France had enunciated theories which are to be 
classed as Socialistic; and Fourier, as an Utopian, ante- 
dated both Owen and Saint-Simon ; but for practical 
purposes, the beginning of Modern Socialism may be 
placed with the event in which Owen figured as above. 
The condition of the British working classes at this 
time was terrible. Speaking of the period of the end of 
the eighteenth century, Villiers says : "Divorced, in the 
towns from all control over the machinery at which 
they worked, in the country from the soil, their guilds 
and clubs broken up, the feeble beginnings of Trade 
Unionism suppressed by law, ill-educated, over-worked 
and shamefully under-paid, the working people of Eng- 
land were practically outside of society altogether. . . . 
I know of no modern literature where the workingman 
counts for so little in life, where his inferiority in status 
is taken so much for granted, as that of the eighteenth 
century." When land became commercially valuable, 
the interest of the poor was taken away. Speaking of 
the invention of the steam engine, Thomas Kirkup calls 
James Watt "the greatest innovator and revolutionist 
the world has ever seen." But the revolution in Indus- 
trialism brought about by the invention of the steam 
engine did not 'benefit the workingman. 

The "Luddites." 

The "Industrial Revolution" — the "condition prece- 
dent" of Modern Socialism — was signalized in England 



216 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

by dreadful distress among the artisan class and by out- 
breaks of popular fury, followed by stern action on the 
part of the authorities. "As we read the accounts of 
the distress which followed upon the introduction of the 
new mechanical inventions/' observes John Spargo, in 
Socialism, "it is impossible to regard with surprise or 
with condemnatory feelings the riots of the misguided 
'Luddites' who went about destroying machinery in 
their wild, desperation." These outbreaks occurred in 
1811-1813, and again in 1816. The real name of the 
leader was Mellor, but he called himself "General Lud," 
this name having been adopted by him from the cir- 
cumstance that an imbecile named Ned Lud, living in 
a village in Leicestershire, on being tormented by some 
boys, pursued them into a factory, and broke two stock- 
ing-frames. Mellor, or "General Lud," led the artisans 
who endeavored to prevent the use of power-looms, 
which had recently been introduced for finishing woolen 
goods, formerly done by men called "croppers," who 
were thrown out of employment. So they organized 
themselves into bands, under "General Lud," and de- 
stroyed the machines. His chief abettors were called 
"Lud's wives," and his followers were called "Lud- 
dites;" and when any machinery was broken 'it became 
a common saying that Lud did it. The riots began 
in the winter of 181 1, in Nottingham, and spread into 
Yorkshire and Lancashire. Parliament passed severe 
laws against the "Luddites," and it is notable that it 
was in opposition to this legislation that Byron made 
his first speech in the House of Lords. In 181 6, fol- 
lowing the European peace, there was fearful distress; 
the harvests were failures, and wheat rose to a guinea 
($5) 3 bushel. Seditious riots broke out in Npttingham 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 217 

and spread over almost the entire kingdom; and the 
rioters, who were well organized, made a specialty of 
destroying machinery. Partly through the return of 
"good times," and partly through the repressive meas- 
ures adopted, the unrest quieted down. In the suppres- 
sion of the "Luddites,'' sixty-four of them were exe- 
cuted in 1812, and also a number early in 1813. 

The "Chartists." 

Between 1837 an ^ I <354 England was disturbed by 
an agitation known as "Chartism," which several times 
threatened to reach the dimensions of a national insur- 
section. It was closely allied to Socialism, although 
some Socialist writers of the present day try to make 
it plain that Chartism was exclusively political in origin 
and objects, and should not be considered as in any way 
connected with the present philosophical evolutionary 
Socialism ; but certainly Chartism must be considered as 
part of the general movement in England during the 
past century which has culminated in the present 
aggressive and enthusiastic Socialist organizations. 
Thomas Kirkup is not one of these Socialist writers 
who try to ignore or depreciate Chartism; he acknowl- 
edges (History of Socialism) that while it was most 
prominently a demand for political reform, yet that 
"both in its origin and in its ultimate aim the movement 
was more essentially economic." 

Kirkup also says that the Chartists broadly and em- 
phatically enunciated the doctrine of "surplus value," 
afterwards elaborated by Marx as the basis of his sys- 
tem. Engels, the great associate of Marx, sympathized 
with the Chartists,— he being in London at the time of 
the agitation — and he became very friendly with th§ 



21% WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Chartist leaders, notably with Feargus O'Connor, the 
chief leader, and Engels contributed to his paper, the 
Northern Star. It was the Chartist movement, and the 
revelations incident thereto as to the condition of the 
working classes, which induced the establishment of the 
Christian Socialist movement by Maurice, Kingsley, and 
Ludlow ; and after the downfall of Chartism, it was the 
old leaders of that agitation around whom centred for 
many years whatever force there was in the Socialist 
cause. In fact, it was Chartism which nurtured Social- 
ism when the latter was in its swaddling clothes. 

Chartism became active in 1838. The document in 
which the scheme of reform was set out was called the 
"People's Charter," or "National Charter;" hence, the 
name "Charterism," afterwards abbreviated to "Chart- 
ism." The origin of Chartism was the dissatisfaction of 
the working people with the Reform Bill of 1832, which, 
while of benefit to the middle classes, was not radical 
enough to reach below that stratum of society. In 1838 
six of the more advanced members of the House of 
Commons held a conference with representatives of the 
Workingmen's Association of London, and the draft 
of a Bill to be introduced in Parliament was agreed 
upon, it being called "The People's Charter." The prin- 
cipal demands formulated in this Bill became famous 
under the name of "the six points" of Chartism, they 
being: (1) annual parliaments; (2) universal manhood 
suffrage; (3) vote by ballot; (4) abolition of the prop- 
erty qualification for membership in the House of Com- 
mons; (5) payment of members of Parliament; (6) 
equal electoral districts. The sincerity of some of the 
members of Parliament who took part in the organiza- 
tion of the movement has been questioned; it is, how- 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 219 

ever, possible that the members referred to may have 
been sincere enough at the commencement, but after- 
wards became frightened at the fierceness which soon 
characterized the movement. The most influential of 
the six members of Parliament who helped to frame the 
"Charter" was the eloquent Irish agitator, the great 
"Liberator," Daniel O'Connell. It is. said that O'Connell 
handed the Charter to the Secretary of the Working- 
men's Association, William Lovett (a man of excep- 
tional ability both as a writer and as an organizer), 
with these words : "There, Lovett, is your Charter ; 
agitate for it, and never be content with anything less." 
Yet O'Connell abandoned the movement ; indeed, he 
became a bitter opponent. Another Irishman, however, 
filled the place of O'Connell — Feargus O'Connor. He 
was an educated and eloquent man, but not a safe leader. 
O'Connor was elected to Parliament from Cork in 1832. 
Becoming estranged from O'Connell, he devoted his 
life to the cause of the workingmen of England, and 
he was one of the most fervent of their advocates. In 
1847 Feargus O'Connor was elected to Parliament from 
Nottingham, England, a working-class constituency. 
Poor O'Connor became hopelessly insane in 1852, and 
died three years afterwards. Beatrice Potter, the wife 
of Sidney Webb, Trade Union and Socialist writer, is 
severe on O'Connor, in her book, The Co-operative 
Movement in Great Britain. She says that the Chartist 
movement drifted from under the leadership of honest 
and able workmen and "passed into the hands of an 
Irish political quack — Feargus O'Connor — who preached 
physical force without daring to use it, and precipitated 
his followers into riots and conspiracies for which they 
alone suffered." Another gifted leader of the move- 



226 WHAT iS SOCIALISM? 

ment was Henry Vincent, who was called "the young 
Demosthenes of English Democracy." No other po- 
litical reform movement, before or since, has ever taken 
such a passionate hold upon the English working classes 
as Chartism did; there has never been anything like it 
in the United Kingdom with the exception of the Fenian 
and similar organizations among the Irish. The organ- 
ization of the movement spread rapidly, and monster 
meetings were held in the principal cities. At Glasgow, 
for instance, there was a meeting of 200,000 working- 
men, and a report of it reads : "The very heavens 
rang with the lively strains of music and the shouts 
of the enthusiastic multitude. There were forty bands 
of music, and more than 200 flags and banners waved 
gracefully in the breeze." Still larger meetings were 
held at Birmingham and Manchester, afterwards; and 
at these and other meetings seditious language was 
used, and collisions occurred with the police. A favorite 
method of impressing the country with the strength of 
the movement was to present monster petitions to Par- 
liament. It was discovered, however, that there was a 
practice of putting large numbers of fictitious names 
on these petitions, and this discovery naturally negatived 
much of the effect which they would otherwise have 
had. In February, 1839, a convention of the Chartists 
was held, and it then became prominent that there were 
two groups in the movement, one favoring peaceful, 
constitutional methods, and the other being avowedly 
a "physical-force" party. There were more collisions 
with the police, and several of the leaders were arrested 
at Birmingham, at which the mob retaliated by setting 
fire to property. On January 14, 1839, a petition was 
presented to Parliament bearing 1,280,000 names, but 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 221 

it was rejected by a vote of 237 to 48, and this action 
of Parliament much embittered the Chartists. Henry 
Vincent and a number of other Chartists were impris- 
oned at Newport, Monmouthshire. On November 4th, 
1839, there occurred at Newport what is known as "The 
Welsh Insurrection." It had been reported that the 
authorities were treating Vincent and the other impris- 
oned Chartists very harshly, and a number of work peo- 
ple of the district, with Chartist sympathies, marched 
on to the jail, probably with the wild idea of releasing 
the prisoners. On the way a company of soldiers was 
encountered; the mob fired some shots at them; the 
latter returned the fire, with the result that ten of the 
mob were killed and a large number wounded. Some 
of the leaders of the mob were arrested, and tried and 
condemned for high treason, and three of them were 
sentenced to death, but their sentences were commuted 
and they were transported. In 1840 there was formed 
at Manchester the National Charter Association, which 
soon became the head of 400 branches. A land scheme 
was started by O'Connor, but it failed after a few 
years; in 1844 O'Connor made himself prominent by 
opposing the Anti-Corn Law League, and he entered 
into a public controversy with Cobden and Bright. 

In 1848 came the culmination of the Chartist move- 
ment. There was terrible suffering among the working 
people of the Kingdom, and they were in a receptive 
mood to absorb the spirit of revolt from their comrades 
of the French capital. There was a renewal of the 
Chartist agitation, accompanied by some disorder. An 
enormous demonstration was arranged for April 10th at 
Kennington, London. It was expected that there would 
be half a million people present, and it was planned to 



222 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

march to the Houses of Parliament, and present a mon- 
ster petition in favor of the "six points" of the Chartist 
programme, it being claimed that this petition was 
signed by 5,700,000 people. Warned by the events at 
Paris, the British authorities determined to take no 
chances. The situation was placed in the hands of the 
Duke of Wellington; and the measures he adopted were 
not only ample for any extreme contingency, but were 
distinguished by great wisdom. He so arranged his 
troops that their presence would not be an inciting cause 
for violence, but at the same time they were ready for 
instant action; and the military were reinforced by a 
civilian contingent of special constables, variously num- 
bered at from 170,000 to over 200,000. The authorities 
permitted the meeting to be held at Kennington Com- 
mon, but forbade the contemplated procession to the 
Houses of Parliament. On the preceding evening 
Maurice, "the Chartist parson," and the joint-founder 
with Kingsley of English Christian Socialism, issued an 
eloquent and impassioned appeal to the Chartists, as 
free and liberty-loving Englishmen, not to stain their 
cause with bloodshed and violence; and to the tre- 
mendous relief of everybody the affair passed off peace- 
fully. Instead of there being half a million persons at 
the meeting, there were only one-tenth that many; and 
the proposed procession to Parliament was abandoned, 
the Chartist leaders deeming it dangerous to defy the 
authorities in that regard. It took three cabs to convey 
the petition to Parliament. Feargus O'Connor presented 
it; but instead of there being 5,700,000 names on it, as 
claimed by O'Connor, there were only 1,975,496, and a 
large number of these were fictitious, many of the names 
being clumsy forgeries, such as "Victoria Rex," the 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 223 

"Duke of Wellington/' and "Sir Robert Peel;" and a 
large number of the signatures were ridiculous, such 
as "Pugnose," "Longnose," "Flatnose," "Punch/' etc. 
This fiasco was speedily followed by the collapse of the 
Chartist movement. 

There has been much discussion as to the value of the 
Chartist agitation in improving the condition of the 
work people. The general view- — and probably the cor- 
rect one — is, that while there was no definite, direct 
beneficial result, yet that indirectly it led to ameliora- 
tive legislation, and caused thoughtful men to give more 
earnest consideration to the just demands of the work 
people; and then it was a lesson in organization to the 
work people themselves. The extreme discontent of 
the wage earners was removed for the time being by 
the inauguration of national prosperity; and subse- 
quently several of "the six points" were granted. The 
vote by ballot was given in 1872; a reformation of the 
electoral districts was made in 1884-5 > an d the franchise 
has been much extended; and at the present writing 
(January, 1912) manhood suffrage is in sight. 

The "International" in England. 

In March, 1909, the Rev. Bernard Vaughan, the 
famous Jesuit priest, delivered a lecture in London, 
under the title, "Socialism; Is It Liberty or Tyranny?" 
His concluding sentence was as follows : "Fellow coun- 
trymen and patriots, build up character, hold your own, 
and send Socialism back to the place whence first it 
came — Germany!" The eloquent father may be per- 
fectly at home in disclaiming on his favorite topic, "Sins 
of Society," but evidently he is not well posted in the 
history of Socialism. As is shown elsewhere in this 



224 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

volume, Socialism is a British rather than a German 
product. 

There is a sense, however, in which Socialism was 
"made in Germany." After the conception of and fad- 
ing away of Utopian Socialism in England, and the 
enunciation of the economic basis of Modern Socialism 
as absorbed and scientifically shaped by Marx, there 
was a period of rest in England in the development of 
Socialism. "Gradually," says Villiers, "the centre of 
interest shifted to Germany, in which land the Socialist 
idea made, for a long time, most progress, and where 
Socialism was armed with, intellectual and political 
weapons fitted to the needs of the age." Villiers pro- 
ceeds to show that the earlier English Socialists "al- 
lowed even more than its due importance to voluntary 
association, and but little to State action." This, how- 
ever, he argues, does not, even from the standpoint of 
the modern Socialist, throw any doubt upon their ortho- 
doxy, for "the aim of Socialism is to secure co-opera- 
tion based on the common ownership of land and capi- 
tal, and the particular manner in which this is attained, 
by State or voluntary action, or by both combined, is, 
however important, a matter of machinery, not of prin- 
ciple." 

Although the marked development of and leadership 
in Socialism by the Germans is of a later period, yet the 
influence of German thought upon British and world- 
wide Socialism began to be exercised as early as 1836, 
when some German exiles in Paris formed a secret Com- 
munistic society called the "League of the Just." Owing 
to their complicity in a rising in Paris in 1839, tne Y Aed 
to London, where they met comrades of like speech, and 
they commenced an international propaganda. They 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 225 

first called their association the Deutscher Arbeit er-Bil- 
dungsverein, and afterwards the Society of the Fra- 
ternal Democrats, their aim being to unite the Democra- 
cies of all nationalities. The original basis of the 
League was a sentimental Communism, based on their 
motto that "all men are brothers. " The philosophy of 
Marx in due time moulded the views of the League, and 
in 1847, through his influence, these exiles held a Con- 
gress in London, and reorganized under the name of 
the Communist League. In 1848, acting on behalf of 
this League, Marx and Engels issued the famous Com- 
munist Manifesto. This document may be described as 
the "Advance Herald" of Marx's Capital In his preface 
to subsequent editions of the Manifesto, Engels says: 
"Drawn up in German, in January, 1848, the manu- 
script was sent to the printer in London a few weeks 
before the French revolution of February 24th. A 
French translation was brought out in Paris, shortly 
before the insurrection of June, 1848. The first Eng- 
lish translation, by Miss Helen Macfarlane, appeared in 
George Julian Harney's Red Republican, London, 
1850." As to the League itself, in the form of the 
organization under the auspices of which the Manifesto 
was brought out, Engels, in the preface, has this to say : 
"Wherever independent proletarian movements con- 
tinued to show life, they were ruthlessly hunted down. 
Thus the Prussian police hunted out the Central Board 
of the Communist League, then located in Cologne. 
The members were arrested, and, after eighteen months' 
imprisonment, they were tried in October, 1852. This 
celebrated 'Cologne Communist trial' lasted from Octo- 
ber 4th till November 12th ; seven of the prisoners were 
sentenced to terms of imprisonment in a fortress, vary- 



226 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

ing from three to six years. Immediately after the 
sentence the League was formally dissolved by the 
remaining members. As to the 'Manifesto/ it seemed 
thenceforth to be doomed to oblivion." 

The "International" sprang from the above move- 
ment, which for several years seems to have lain dor- 
mant. But in 1862 some French workmen visited Lon- 
don to see the International Exhibition, and there was 
an exchange of ideas among the comrades. This led 
to a meeting held in London, at St. Martin's Hall, Sep- 
tember 28th, 1863. The chair was occupied by Prof. 
Edward Spencer Beesley, the famous Positivist author 
and radical social reformer, who in 1868 was made an 
honorary member of the Amalgamated Society of Car- 
penters and Joiners, in recognition of his labors in 
securing the removal of laws unjust to Trade Union- 
ists. The "International" was organized at this con- 
vention. Englishmen were elected as President, Secre- 
tary, and Treasurer of the General Council, and Corre- 
sponding Secretaries were elected for the different 
affiliated countries, Marx being chosen for Germany. A 
draft constitution was prepared, and it was confirmed 
afterwards, at the first Congress of the "International," 
at Geneva, in 1866. At the London meeting an address 
setting forth the objects of the movement was drawn 
up, the title of the organization being "The Inter- 
national Workingmen's Association." This address 
claimed that all recent revolutions and reforms had 
been in the interest of the middle classes, with no result- 
ant improvement of the condition of the working classes ; 
that the workingmen must emancipate themselves; and 
that the "International" was designed to be a centre of 
common action for the complete deliverance of the 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 227 

workingmen of the world, without distinction of creed, 
nationality or color, from the tyranny of capital. The 
"International" stood for different things in different 
countries, and when it became "continentalized," and 
revolutionary, and permeated with Socialism of the most 
extreme materialistic doctrines, it lost all influence in 
England. Its history is not a notable one, the principal 
incident in its brief career being the struggle for 
supremacy between Marx and Bakounin, the Russian 
Nihilist. Marx won, but that was practically the end 
of the "International.". 

The Social Democratic Federation. 

With the practical renunciation of the "International" 
by the English workingmen on account of its material- 
istic aims and revolutionary methods, and with their 
absorbed interest in Co-operation and Trade Unionism, 
it seemed as if Socialism had been put away perma- 
nently. But the fact was that the ground was only 
being prepared for a renewed, a second and a stronger 
growth. While Co-operation and Trade Unionism were 
receiving the attention of the working classes, and dis- 
ciplining them for the contest soon to come, the "intel- 
lectuals" of the political Radicals were having developed 
among them a mental receptiveness for the doctrines of 
Marxian Socialism. The theories of Henry George had 
taken deep root in the English mind, among all classes 
— much more so than in his native country. Gladstone's 
policy in both Ireland and Egypt was very obnoxious to 
the Radical element in the Liberal Party ; and the leaven 
of dissatisfaction with orthodox politics and economics 
was at work. Yet for years there was no public indica- 
tion of the existence of any Socialist sentiment in Eng- 



228 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

land except among the foreign refugees in the Soho dis- 
trict of London. Karl Marx, who from his long resi- 
dence in England, ought to have thoroughly understood 
the English people, several times told Henry Mayers 
Hyndman (the most active English Socialist of the time) 
that he despaired "of any great movement in England, 
unless in response to some violent impetus from with- 
out." A leading member of the defunct and discred- 
ited "International/' Eugene Dupont, said: "The Eng- 
lish possess all the materials necessary for the social 
revolution; but they lack the generalizing spirit and the 
revolutionary passion." 

But finally a start was made in 1881, by an attempt 
to unite the Radical clubs of London under the name 
of the Democratic Federation. Its direct aim was to 
secure the passage of measures of Radical reform, 
including land nationalization; and real, genuine, Marx- 
ian, Revolutionary Socialism became an organized fact 
two years afterwards, within the Federation. 

There are different accounts as to how this revival of 
Socialism first made itself manifest. It is generally 
definitely ascribed to the action of the Democratic Fed- 
eration, in 1884, * n declaring for Socialism, and at the 
same time changing its name to the Social Democratic 
Federation. But Rae, in Contemporary Socialism, says 
that "in 1883 a Socialist movement seemed to break out 
spontaneously in England, the air hummed for a season 
with a multifarious social agitation, and we soon had a 
fairly complete equipment of Socialist organizations — 
social democratic, anarchist, dilettante — which have ever 
since kept up a busy movement with newspapers, lec- 
tures, debates, speeches, and demonstrations in the 
streets." 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 22$ 

Whether this movement was the result of a deliberate 
plan of the leading spirits of the original Democratic 
Federation, formed in 1881, or whether it broke out 
spontaneously, as suggested by Rae, there can be no 
doubt as to the establishment of Revolutionary Social- 
ism in England at last; and there was another fact of 
which there can be no doubt, viz., that the form in which 
it came was a German importation : Socialism had come 
back to the land of its birth, but it had come with a new 
inspiration, and in new habiliments. There are those 
who insist that this new "Scientific, Revolutionary" So- 
cialism, as hammered out by the German Jew, Karl 
Marx, in London, from crude raw material which was 
principally English in origin, and which had been tem- 
pered and refined in a scientific manner in Germany, is 
"the last word" in the expression of Socialism or Eco- 
nomic Reform. But this view has not been accepted to 
any great extent in England, and it is getting to be less 
and less the prevailing view throughout the world. 

The Social Democratic Federation is the oldest So- 
cialist organization in England, with the exception of 
the Guild of St. Matthew, a Church of England Chris- 
tian Socialist body, founded in 1877. When the Federa- 
tion was first organized it flung the flag of uncompro- 
mising Marxian Socialism to the breeze; that "flag is 
still there," and the historic policy of the Federation 
has been one of "close communion" — of frigid non- 
intercourse with heterodox "Opportunists." There have 
been few intellectual or economic movements inau- 
gurated anywhere by such a brilliant company of men 
and women as that which took part in the organization 
and early career of the Social Democratic Federation. 
At their head was Henry Mayers Hyndman, who after 



230 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

the lapse of nearly thirty years continues his premier 
position in the leadership of the Marxian forces in Eng- 
land. Hyndman has had a remarkable career. After 
taking his degree at Oxford, in 1864, an d studying law, 
he went through the Italian campaign of 1866 as cor- 
respondent of the Pall Mall Gazette. He became an 
authority on and acrid critic of Indian affairs; was a 
fiery opponent of Gladstone's "coercion policy" in Ire- 
land; and in 1886 he w T as tried with John Burns (now 
a member of the British Cabinet) and several others for 
"uttering sedition and inciting to violence" in a speech 
to the unemployed in Trafalgar Square, London; but 
after a trial lasting three days they were all acquitted. 
During the political agitation of 1909 he became promi- 
nent in uniting himself with Robert Blatchford, the 
editor of the Socialist Clarion, in urging the British 
people to prepare themselves to withstand an invasion 
from Germany — not that he thinks the German people 
themselves want to take England, but that this, as he 
believes, is the life-ambition of the young German 
Emperor and of the bureaucrats surrounding him. As- 
sociated with Hyndman in organizing the Social Demo- 
cratic Federation were the famous Positivist,. Prof. 
Beesley (who had presided at the organization of the 
"International") ; Joseph Cowen, M. P., the friend of 
Mazzini and Garibaldi ; Helen Taylor, the niece of John 
Stuart Mill ; Belfort Bax, probably the most incisive and 
philosophical writer on Socialism, from the Marxian 
standpoint, England has ever produced; and Dr. Ave- 
ling, a popular writer and lecturer, but best known as 
the son-in-law of Karl Marx. Others who early joined 
the Social Democratic Federation were William Mor- 
ris, the wonderfully gifted poet and artist — claimed by 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 231 

some to be the greatest intellect ever associated with 
Socialism; John Burns, the most prominent British 
labor agitator of the century, but now repudiated by his 
old comrades — at least by the noisiest and least respon- 
sible of them — because of his acceptance of a Cabinet 
position under the present Liberal Administration; Ber- 
nard Shaw, the famous playwright and professional 
cynic, who subsequently seceded from the Federation 
and became the leader of the Fabians, or Opportunists; 
Sidney Webb, the greatest living authority on Trade 
Unionism, and the author of a standard work on So- 
cialism, and now also a Fabian ; Sir Sydney Olivier, now 
the Governor of Jamaica, and said to be the first avowed 
Socialist to receive a responsible appointment from the 
British Crown; the Rev. Stewart Headlam, a "Catholic" 
High Anglican Churchman, and founder of the oldest 
British Socialist society, the Guild of St. Matthew, who 
is now classed as a Fabian; Tom Mann, a noted Labor 
leader, afterwards at the head of the Socialist move- 
ment of Australia, but who returned to England and 
was at the forefront in the violent Labor outbreak in 
191 1 ; and Mrs. Annie Besant, the brilliant but erratic 
agnostic and literary associate of the greatest Radical 
in England (but a strong anti-Socialist), Charles Brad- 
laugh. The organ of the Federation is Justice, the edi- 
tor of which, Henry Quelch, is one of the most extreme 
Revolutionary Socialists in England. The Federation 
also has two monthly reviews, the Social Democrat, and 
To-Day. 

The Social Democratic Federation (latterly some- 
times called the Social Democratic Party) is the most 
radical organization of standing, politically and eco- 
nomically, in Great Britain ; it is often designated as the 



2$2 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

"S. D. F.," and its object is officially stated to be as 
follows : 

The socialization of the means of production, distribution, 
and exchange, to be controlled by a democratic state in the 
interests of the entire community, and the complete emanci- 
pation of labor from the domination of capitalism and land- 
lordism, with the establishment of social and economic 
equality between the sexes. 

The following are among the "immediate reforms" 
demanded : 

Abolition of the Monarchy; 

Abolition of the House of Lords; 

Payment of members of Parliament; 

Adult suffrage; 

Proportional representation ; 

Second ballot; 

Initiative and Referendum; 

Repudiation of the National Debt; 

Abolition of all indirect taxation, and the institution of a 
cumulative tax on all incomes and inheritances exceeding 
three hundred pounds ; 

Free and compulsory education up to 16 years of age; 

Land nationalization ; and nationalization of the trusts, rail- 
ways, docks, canals, and all great means of transit; 

Public ownership and control of gas, electric light, water 
supplies, tramways [street cars], omnibus, and other loco- 
motive services ; of the food and coal supply, the lifeboat 
service, hospitals, dispensaries, cemeteries, and crematoria, 
and the drink traffic; and the establishment of State and 
municipal banks, pawnshops, and public restaurants ; 

Eight-hour working day, as a maximum ; 

Freedom of labor combinations ; 

No employment of children under 16 years of age; 

Public provision of work at trade union rates; 

Free State insurance, and State pensions for the aged or 
disabled ; 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 233 

A minimum wage of thirty shillings a week; equal pay for 

both sexes ; 
Public dwellings for the people at cost, without counting the 

cost of the land ; 
Free administration of justice, and free legal advice; 
Disestablishment and disendowment of all State churches; 
Abolition of standing armies, and establishment of national 

citizen forces, the people to decide on peace and war. 

Sidney Webb, who was one of the early members, 
thus describes the Social Democratic Federation, in his 
book specially written for American readers, Socialism 
in England: 

In economics it professes to follow Karl Marx; in politics 
it is "Collectivist" as well as extremely democratic, and is 
marked by a tone of bitter repudiation of both liberal and 
conservative politicians. It denounces especially the "Con- 
servatism" of the trades union leaders, and the working 
members of Parliament, as well as the "Jingo" foreign policy 
carried on by both great parties in the interests of capitalists 
and the aristocracy. 

The Social Democratic Federation has not made much 
of an impression upon English public life. Of recent 
years it has entered the political field, but it has not 
attracted many votes. Foreign observers who have 
measured the Socialist situation in England by these 
results, and do not understand the complications of the 
English Labor-Socialist alliance, have not properly esti- 
mated the strength of the general movement. The fact 
is, the "S. D. F." is too "Marxian" for British condi- 
tions and British habits of thought and British national 
characteristics. Mr. Hyndman is evidently of Teutonic 
origin; it is certain he has the Teutonic philosophical 
and logical temperament, rather than the British prac- 



234 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

tical spirit of Opportunism. He and the organization 
to which he has devoted his life have adopted the Ger- 
man expression of Socialism; but that expression does 
not appeal to any great number of Englishmen. 

So, it is not to be wondered at that, although it is 
the second oldest of the Socialist organizations of Great 
Britain, the "S. D. F." does not cut much of a figure in 
actual political results, high intellectually though its 
literary advocates are. In 1906 the Federation polled 
only 29,810 votes, in a general election, electing one 
member of Parliament — Will Thorne, in West Ham, 
one of the poorest districts of London. In 1907, it 
elected another member, Victor Grayson, in a famous 
"bye" election in Colne Valley, a mining district of 
Yorkshire. Mr. Grayson was "suspended from the 
service of the House" for boisterous conduct and refus- 
ing to obey the order of the Speaker; and it is signifi- 
cant that although his conduct was avowedly based on 
the well-intentioned determination to force the atten- 
tion of the Government to the deplorable condition of 
the unemployed, yet it did not receive the support of the 
Labor-Socialists. The report of the "S. D. F." for the 
year ending March, 1907, gave the number of branches 
and affiliated societies at 186; and in that year it had 
about 120 adherents who were members of various 
elected bodies, although probably a majority were 
elected independently of their Socialist views. 

At the annual conference held in 1908, a proposal 
that the Federation should join the Labor Party in view 
of the fact that the latter had declared that its ultimate 
object was the realization of Socialism, was rejected by 
130 to 30 votes. Mr. Quelch declared in Justice that 
the Labor Party was "undemocratic in character," and 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 235 

he objected to a Socialist Party "being tied to the heels 
of a non-Socialist Party." 

At this conference the following resolution, offered by 
Mr. Quelch, was carried without opposition : 

That in view of the efforts of enemies of Socialism to 
create division and prejudice in the ranks of the workers by 
raising sectarian disputes, this conference definitely reaf- 
firms the position always maintained by the International 
Social Democracy, that the Socialist movement is concerned 
solely with secular affairs, and regards religion as a private 
matter. 

At the twenty-eighth conference of the Social Demo- 
cratic Party (as it now seems to prefer to be called), 
held in August, 1908, there were present 140 delegates, 
representing 112 branches and two affiliated societies. 
The organization is strongest in London, where the 
headquarters are situated. During the year 57 new 
branches had been added; there are 13 "Socialist Cir- 
cles" for women affiliated with the party; and the total 
number of the branches at the commencement of 1909 
is given as about 250. 

Villiers claims that the first and greatest of the men 
who were instrumental in shaping the German-Marxian 
Socialism of the Social Democratic Federation into 
something more in keeping with English ideas was 
William Morris, the poet and artist. The resignation 
of Morris from the Federation and the founding by him 
of a rival organization, The Socialist League, is given 
as evidence of this recognition by him of the necessity 
of "Anglicizing" the movement. But the League was 
just as "un-English" as the Federation. There were 
personal reasons which influenced Morris in withdraw- 



236 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

ing from the Federation; but he was also opposed to 
the methods of the Federation in advancing the Social- 
ist cause. The League acknowledged the Collectivist 
principle as to the public control of the instruments of 
production and distribution, but it also accepted the 
philosophic- Anarchist doctrine that the control should 
be by free communal groups. The organ of the League 
was the Commonweal, which was edited by Morris. 
The League did not have much influence, and it soon 
went out of existence. While Morris had leanings to 
philosophic-Anarchism, he was not a revolutionary An- 
archist, and when the League showed tendencies in the 
latter direction, he withdrew from it. After the col- 
lapse of the League, Morris identified himself with its 
successor, the Hammersmith Socialist Society. A 
prominent member of the Socialist League was Bruce 
Glasier, now well known as the editor of the Labor- 
Leader, the organ of the Independent Labor Party. 

"Fabianism." 

Probably the most widely-known of all Socialist 
organizations throughout the world is that of the Eng- 
lish Fabians ; and, politics aside, it has undoubtedly done 
more to influence intellectual opinion throughout the 
world — but particularly in England and America — in 
favor of Socialism, than any other agency or associa- 
tion. And yet it is not a large organization, its total 
membership in 1908 being less than 3,000, about 2,500 of 
whom belonged to the parent society in London. There 
are branches in the principal British cities, and several 
affiliated university societies. The Fabians in 1910 had 
11 members in the House of Commons — 5 sitting as 
Liberals, and 6 as members of the Labor Party. The 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 237 

leading living Fabian is the well-known playwright, G. 
Bernard Shaw. He claims (preface to 1908 edition of 
Fabian Essays) that: "Since 1889 the Socialist move- 
ment has been completely transformed throughout 
Europe; and the result of the transformation may 
fairly be described as Fabian Socialism." This is un- 
questionably true so far as England is concerned; but 
as to the Continent, a denial would be entered by the 
German Marxists, although even in Germany there is 
an increasing tendency to adopt Fabian Opportunism. 

Strange to say, it was an American who started the 
ball to roll which ended in the formation of the Fabian 
Society, his name being Thomas Davidson, of New 
York. He happened to be in London in the autumn of 
1883, when there was a great deal of talk about So- 
cialism, growing out of the English campaign of Henry 
George and the pending organization of the Social 
Democratic Federation. Under the leadership of Mr. 
Davidson a series of meetings of an informal nature 
were held, at which social questions were discussed. An 
organization called the "New Fellowship" was formed, 
and a quarterly journal named Seedtime was published. 
The members of the "New Fellowship" laid supreme 
stress on the need for ethical and spiritual changes as 
constant factors in the social movement, while others 
associated with them in the conferences called by Mr. 
Davidson favored the social and political changes de- 
manded by the Social Democratic Federation, to be 
brought about gradually, however, as opportunity of- 
fered. It was this latter group who organized the far- 
famed Fabian Society. 

The Fabians may be described as "Intellectual Op- 
portunists." One of the founders of the society, the 



238 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

late William Clarke, M. A. (and one of the writers of 
the well-known Fabian Essays), has explained that the 
Fabians propose to "conquer by delay." The Roman 
General, Quintus Fabius Maximus, was adopted as the 
patron saint of the society. The following is the motto 
of the Fabians : "For the right moment you must wait, 
as Fabius did, most patiently, when warring against 
Hannibal, though many censured his delays; but when 
the time comes you must strike hard, as Fabius did, or 
your waiting will be in vain and fruitless." This double 
policy, then, as Clarke says, of waiting and striking, is 
the general idea of the society. It is now generally 
recognized in England by the anti-Socialists, that 
through this policy, and because of the fact that it is 
being backed up by greater intellectual activity and 
adroiter diplomacy than are engaged in any other eco- 
nomic or political organization in existence, anywhere 
(with the possible exception of the German Social 
Democracy), the Fabians have become the most dan- 
gerous of all the various groups of Socialists; and, at 
the same time, they are the most suave and "respecta- 
ble." 

As to the basis of the Fabian Society, the following 
is taken from the official statement : 

The Fabian Society consists of Socialists. 

It therefore aims at the reorganization of Society by the 
emancipation of Land and Industrial Capital from individual 
and class ownership, and the vesting of them in the com- 
munity for the general benefit. . . . 

The Society accordingly works for the extinction of 
private property in land and the consequent individual appro- 
priation in the form of Rent, of the price paid for permission 
to use the earth as well as for the advantages of superior 
soils and sites. 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 239 

The Society further works for the transfer to the com- 
munity of the administration of such Industrial Capital as 
can conveniently be managed socially. 

The Fabian Society was so called to distinguish it in 
the beginning from the only Socialism that existed in 
England in the early eighties — a wild, red revolutionary 
Socialism which sought to stir up the proletariat to a 
violent insurrection. The word "Fabian" has passed 
into the English language as a synonym for "cautious- 
ness." A Fabian policy is a cautious policy. The effort 
has been to make people understand that Fabian So- 
cialism is of a kind which is thoughtful, brainy, and 
responsible ; the name is admitted to be rather whimsical, 
but its intention is plain, and the English people have 
now fairly grasped its significance. 

Fabians aim at State, National, and Municipal owner- 
ship and control of land and capital, and they consider 
it better to socialize a part of the land' or capital for 
the benefit of all, than to socialize everything in a given 
small area for the benefit of a few. That is why the 
Fabians, while being Opportunists, are not cordial to 
Communistic experiments, or even to Co-operation, for, 
in their view, the communals or co-operators really 
became a close corporation of proprietors holding 
against the main body of the people. 

The Independent Labor Party. 

Fabianism breathed the breath of life into the coldly 
philosophical materialism of Marxian Socialism, and 
substituted gradual, practical, every-day experience and 
ameliorative changes in public matters and social af- 
fairs for the vision of a dimly-distant revolutionary 
Collective Commonwealth. But, there was yet an ele- 



2 4 o WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

ment wanting; and Trade Unionism supplied it. The 
Independent Labor Party, and especially the Labor 
Party, became the fighting-force of British Socialism. 
Until Labor, with its good, strong right arm, "took up" 
Socialism, it was little more effective or to be feared 
than — say Theosophy ! 

During a visit to Canada a few years ago, Keir Har- 
die, the Labor-Socialist Member of Parliament, is re- 
ported to have said, in reply to a question, "There is 
no class struggle." And yet, the Independent Labor 
Party, of which he was the founder, was organized 
primarily because of a controversy growing out of a 
"class struggle." The immediate occasion of its forma- 
tion was a strike at Bradford, the capitalists, both Con- 
servatives and Liberals, uniting to defeat the men. As 
a consequence, the men decided to start independent 
political action; a conference was called, and the Inde- 
pendent Labor Party was founded. At first, the con- 
troversy was merely a clash between Capital and Labor, 
but very soon Socialism as a definite issue became the 
cardinal principle of the organization. 

It has been remarked that although Scotland is a 
democratic country — indeed, in a political sense, it is 
more so than England — yet, until recently, it has not 
been prominent in social reform. Even at the present 
time Socialism proper has not made nearly as much 
headway in Scotland as it has in England, although 
some of the Socialist leaders in England are Scotch- 
men — as, for instance, Keir Hardie himself, and the 
intellectual leader of Labor-Socialism, Ramsay Mac- 
donald. But Scotland led England in actual Labor- 
Socialist organization. The pioneer avowedly Socialist 
organization in Scotland was the Land and Labor 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 241 

League, founded in Edinburgh in 1883. The Social Demo- 
cratic League and the Socialist League shortly after- 
wards established branches in Edinburgh, Glasgow, and 
a few other towns. The President of the Miners' Union 
was a remarkable young man named James Keir Har- 
die. When he was only eight years old he went to work 
in a mine as doorkeeper, and he worked in the mines 
until he was twenty-three years of age. A trouble 
arose with the mine owners, and young Hardie came 
to the front as leader, and was elected Secretary of the 
Union, and afterwards President. In 1888 he founded 
the Scottish Labor Party, which thus became the fore- 
runner of the Independent Labor Party of Great 
Britain. The same year Keir Hardie ran as a Socialist 
candidate for Parliament in Mid-Lanark, but was de- 
feated. He now represents- a Welsh constituency, Mer- 
thyr Tydfil, although he is often spoke, of as "the 
Member for the Unemployed." 

At the Labor conference held at Bradford, in 1893, 
Keir Hardie took a prominent part, and it was largely 
through his efforts that the Independent Labor Party 
was formed. From the first, the organization was So- 
cialist, although the word "Socialist" was not incor- 
porated in the name. In 1894 the constitution was 
amended, and its object was declared to be "the Col- 
lective ownership and control of the means of produc- 
tion, distribution, and exchange." 

The official statement (1909) of the programme and 
demands of the Independent Labor Party is as follows : 

Object. 

An Industrial Commonwealth founded upon the socializa- 
tion of land and capital. 



2 4 2 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Methods. 
The education of the community in the principles of 
Socialism; 
The industrial and political organization of the workers ; 
The independent representation of Socialist principles in 
all elective bodies. 

Programme. 
The true object of industry being the production of the 
requirements of life, the responsibility should rest with the 
community collectively; therefore: 

The land, being the storehouse of all the necessaries of 
life, should be declared and treated as public property; 

The capital necessary for industrial operations should be 
owned and used collectively. 

Demands. 
As a means to this end, the Independent Labor Party de- 
mands the enactment of the following measures [summar- 
ized] : 
A forty-eight hours' working week; 

Provisions of work, at trade union rates, with a mini- 
mum of sixpence [12 cents] per hour; 

Parish, district, borough, and county councils to be in- 
vested with powers to organize and undertake such indus- 
tries as they may consider desirable : to compulsorily ac- 
quire land; to purchase, erect, or manufacture buildings, 
stock, or other articles for carrying on such industries ; to 
levy rates on the rental values of the district, and borrow 
money on the security of such rates for any of the above 
purposes ; 

State pensions for every person over 50 years of age, 
and adequate provision for all widows, orphans, sick, and 
disabled workers; 

Free secular, moral, primary, secondary, and university 
education, with free maintenance while at school or uni- 
versity ; 

Raising of the age of child labor; 

Municipalization and public control of the drink traffic; 
Municipalization and public control of all hospitals and 
infirmaries ; 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 243 

Abolition of indirect taxation and the gradual transfer- 
ence of all public burdens on to unearned incomes with a 
view to their ultimate extinction; 

Adult suffrage ; equal rights to women with men ; trien- 
nial parliaments ; and second ballot. 

In 1895 the party had 28 Parliamentary candidates in 
the field, but it did not elect any; it polled altogether 
44,321 votes. 

In 1900, at the general election (called the "Khaki" 
election, on account of the Boer War being an issue), 
there were 10 Parliamentary seats contested, but only 
one candidate was elected — J. Keir Hardie, for Merthyr 
Tydfil. On a straight-out Socialist and anti-war plat- 
form, the party as a whole polled 37,209 votes. 

At the General Election of 1906 (when the present 
Liberal Government secured power, with the largest 
party majority in modern times) the Independent La- 
bor Party worked in conjunction with the Labor Repre- 
sentation Committee (now the Labor Party). Thus 
working in alliance, the Independent Labor Party nomi- 
nated 10 Parliamentary candidates, and elected 7; and 
of the thirty members of the Labor Party who were 
elected as such, 11 of them were also members of the 
Independent Labor Party. Through its various groups 
and alliances, the Socialist-Labor Party controlled 55 
votes in Parliament. 

In August, 1907, the Independent Labor Party had 
over 700 branches, of which 155 had been formed in 
the preceding six months. In 1908, the organization 
had 765 branches. The total paying-membership was 
then estimated at over 40,000, and its income and ex- 
penditure at £100,000. 

The Independent Labor Party had in 1909 about 



244 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

900 representatives on town, county, district, and other 
local governing bodies. 

The organ of the Party is the Labor Leader, founded 
and formerly edited by Keir Hardie, but now edited 
by J. Bruce Glasier, who was one of the first to identify 
himself with definite Socialism in Great Britain. Glasier 
was one of the founders of the Scotch Social Demo- 
cratic Federation, and was one of the contributors to 
Morris's Commonweal. 

The Labor Party. 

Even in England there is much confusion with regard 
to the composition of British Socialism, and especially 
as to the Labor-Socialists : — as to the identity of the dif- 
ferent organizations, their relationship to each other, 
and as to the relationship of the Socialist organizations 
as a whole to Trade Unionism as a separate movement; 
and this confusion applies particularly to the connection 
between Socialism and Labor in the House of Com- 
mons. It is not to be wondered at that foreign stu- 
dents of Socialism are bewildered over the complica- 
tions of the relationship between these various organiza- 
tions. This confusion is increased by the similarity of 
names of the Independent Labor Party and the Labor 
Party (the latter until lately being known as the Par- 
liamentary Labor Representation Committee). The 
consequence is that there is a failure on the Continent 
and in America to understand adequately or to appre- 
ciate fully the development and the present status of 
British Socialism. Of the American writers on Social- 
ism Robert Hunter is one of the few who clearly un- 
derstand the situation as to both the peculiar relation- 
ship existing between the different Socialist and Labor 



BRITISH SOCIALISM MS 

organizations to each other, and the methods and the 
spirit of present-day militant British Socialism. 

The Labor Party is not really a Party at all, and the 
name is a misnomer. It is a Federation of organizations 
to secure the election of Labor members of Parliament, 
and the enactment of laws favorable to Labor. Yet, as 
an organization, it has no political or economic pro- 
gramme; it is not by name Socialist, but it is the most 
important Socialist political force in England to-day. 

The fundamental idea of the so-called Labor Party 
was not originally Socialism — and is not now — but the 
direct representation of Labor in Parliament. As long 
back as 1874 there were thirteen candidates for election 
as direct representatives of Labor in Parliament, and 
two of these were successful. In 1892, at the General 
election, there were other Labor successes, among those 
elected being John Burns, one of the most famous of 
the Trade Union leaders, and now one of the most dis- 
liked men living, on the part of many of his former 
comrades, partly because he has since told them some 
plain but unwelcome truths, but principally because of 
a mean, petty spirit of proscription and jealousy on their 
part, he deeming it not beneath his dignity and honor 
as a workingman and a British subject to take office in 
the present Government, where he has labored unceas- 
ingly to benefit the class to which he belongs. Without 
unfairness it can be charged that narrow-minded intol- 
erance is a characteristic of professional Socialists, not 
only in England but generally. 

The Labor Representation Committee (now the La- 
bor Party) was formed in 1900. It was, and is now, 
a political committee composed of representatives of 
Trade Unions and Socialist societies, to indorse and 



246 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

support the candidates nominated by its constituent 
Unions and societies. The organization definitely orig- 
inated at the Trade Union Congress held at Plymouth, 
in 1899, when a resolution was adopted calling for a 
conference of Trade Union, Co-operative, Socialistic, 
and other working-class organizations to consider La- 
bor-political representation. This conference was held 
in London, February 20-28, 1900, societies being repre- 
sented with a membership of nearly 600,000, of which 
all were Trade Unionists with the exception of 22,861, 
who were designated as Socialists. At this conference 
a Labor Representation Committee was formed; since 
then annual conferences have been held ; and at the con- 
ference in 1906 the name was changed to that of the 
Labor Party. 

Constitution and Organization. 
The Labor Party is a Federation consisting of Trades 
Unions, Trades Councils, Socialist Societies, and Local Labor 
Parties. Co-operative Societies are also eligible. 

1. Candidates and members must accept this constitution; 
agree to abide by the decisions of the Parliamentary Party 
in carrying out the aims of this Constitution; appear before 
their constituencies under the title of Labor Candidates only ; 
abstain strictly from identifying themselves with or pro- 
moting the interests of any party not eligible for affiliation; 
and they must not oppose any Candidate recognized by the 
Executive Committee of the Party. 

2. Candidates must undertake to join the Parliamentary 
Labor Party, if elected. 

Formerly the Trade Unions and Socialist and other 
organizations affiliated with the Labor Party were 
assessed to pay political expenses and the salaries of ' 
their members of Parliament. This was a great bone 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 247 

of contention on the part of many individual Trade 
Unionists, but the difficulty has been largely overcome 
since the passage of the law in 191 1 providing for the 
payment of members of Parliament. 

The affairs of the committee of the Labor Party are 
transacted by an executive committee of 13, of whom 
nine represent the Trade Unions, one the Trade Coun- 
cils, and three the Socialist societies. 

At the General Election of 1900, the Labor Repre- 
sentation Committee endorsed fifteen candidates for 
Parliament, of whom two were elected — Richard Bell, 
at Derby (the President of the Railwaymen's Unions), 
and Keir Hardie, at Merthyr Tydfil. In 1902, David 
James Shackelton, a weaver and Trade Union leader, 
was endorsed by the committee, and was returned un- 
opposed for the Clitheroe District, Lancashire. He was 
made Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee of the 
Trade Union Congress, and has been made Chairman 
of the Labor Party in the House of Commons, although 
he is not a Socialist. In 1910 he was appointed Labor 
Advisor to the British Government. 

In the General Election of January, 1906, the Commit- 
tee endorsed 53 candidates for Parliament, and elected 
30 members. Besides these, 23 Labor members were 
elected on the nomination of various Trade Union 
bodies, independent of other parties. These 53 Labor- 
Socialist members — for that is what they really are — 
did not include a number of other "Laborites" and 
Fabian Socialists or "Independents" affiliated with the 
Radical wing of the Liberal Party. 

Later on in the Session, the number of members 
officially classed as Labor-Socialists (although several 
art not avowed Socialists, strictly speaking), was 55, 



248 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

of whom 49 are returned from England, 4 from Wales, 
and 2 from Scotland. It is very significant that no So- 
cialists are returned from Ireland, although a number 
of the Home-Rule "Nationalists" are given occasionally 
to coquetting with the Socialists, and as a consequence 
sometimes incur disciplinary censure from the ecclesi- 
astics of the Roman Catholic Church. Among the 55 
Labor-Socialist members was Victor Grayson, the 
"stormy petrel" of British Socialism. He scorned to be 
classed among the "Laborites," but was proud of being 
distinguished as the only "pure and simple" Marxian 
Revolutionary Socialist in the British Parliament. He 
is a self-made man, and, while somewhat eccentric, is 
possessed of no little ability. He was endorsed by the 
Independent Labor Party, but not by the Labor Party. 
He was elected at a bye-election in July, 1907, in the 
Colne Valley (Yorkshire) district, his election creating 
a great sensation through Great Britain, for two 
reasons : It was the first time in the history of Parlia- 
ment that an out-and-out Revolutionary Socialist, with- 
out qualification, Labor or otherwise, had ever been 
elected; and then Grayson defeated both his Liberal and 
Conservative opponents combined, the Liberal candidate 
being a son of John Bright. 

Socialism Submerges Trade Unionism. 

The extraordinary success of the Labor-Socialists in 
the General Elections of 1906 sent a thrill of enthusiasm 
through the ranks; and the conservative elements of 
society and the anti-Socialists became much alarmed. 
There was one great fact standing out like a mountain 
peak in British politics, and that was that Socialistic 
ideas had got the complete ascendency in the Trade 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 249 

Unions — the biggest organized force in the Kingdom. 

The last of the great Trade Unions to hold out 
against the Socialist alliance was the Miners' Federa- 
tion ; and the fact is worth noting because in the United 
States the Miners' Unions in the Western States have 
been the first of the native American Labor organiza- 
tions to declare for Socialism. In 1906 the British 
Miners' Federation, which is the largest Labor organ- 
ization in the United Kingdom (having a membership 
of over 500,000), rejected a proposal to affiliate with 
the Labor Party (which is Socialist, as explained 
above), by 101,714 to 92,222 — a majority of 9,492 
against. In 1907 the ballot resulted in 213,317 for 
affiliation, to 168,294 against — a majority of 45,023 in 
favor of affiliation. The Miners' Federation have 15 
Members of Parliament. 

The Labor Party has committed itself — and in so do- 
ing has committed the Trade Unions affiliated with it — 
to International Socialism. At the International So-' 
cialist Bureau, which met at Brussels October 10-12, 
1908, the most important matter which came up for 
settlement was the application of the British Labor 
Party for representation in the International Socialist 
Congresses. The question had been referred to the 
Bureau by the preceding International Socialist Con- 
gress, held at Stuttgart. Karl Kautsky, the famous 
German Socialist editor, offered the following resolu- 
tion: 

In consideration of the resolutions of past International 
Congresses, accepting all the organizations which take up 
their stand upon the ground of the class struggle and recog- 
nize the need of political action; 

The International Bureau declares that it admits the Eng- 



250 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

lish Labor Party to the International Congresses, because, 
without explicitly accepting the proletarian class struggle, 
it is practically engaged in that struggle : because, thanks to 
its own organization, it is independent of the bourgeois par- 
ties and places itself in consequence on th« ground of Inter- 
national Socialism. 

An Englishman opposed the resolution. It was no 
less a person than Henry Mayers Hyndman, who repre- 
sented the British Marxian Socialist Society, the Social 
Democratic Federation. He claimed that the British 
Labor Party does not take its stand unequivocally on 
the class struggle; and that if it was admitted, there 
would be no excuse for excluding the American Federa- 
tion of Labor. [It might be remarked that Socialists 
consider the American Federation of Labor as a "capi- 
talistic" organization, for the reason that it is founded 
upon the "wage system."] 

The Kautsky resolution was adopted with substantial 
unanimity. This action, and other incidents recently, 
raise the question whether Marxian Socialism on the 
Continent itself is not shedding its cast-iron clothing 
of strict Revolutionary orthodoxy. 

At the Conference of the Labor Party, held at Hull, 
January 20-22, 1908, the following amendment to the 
constitution, with the object of making Socialism spe- 
cifically the basis of the party, was defeated by 91,000 
for, to 951,000 against: 

. . . To organize and maintain a Parliamentary Party, 
with its own whips, whose ultimate object shall be the obtain- 
ing for the workers the full results of their labor by the 
overthrow of the present competitive system of capitalism 
and the institution of a system of public ownership and 
control of all the means of life. 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 251 

But at the same Conference the following resolution 
was adopted by a vote of 514,000 for, to 469,000 against : 

That, in the opinion of this Conference, the time has 
arrived when the Labor Party should have as a definite 
object the socialization of the means of production, distribu- 
tion, and exchange, to be controlled by a democratic State 
in the interest of the entire community and the complete 
emancipation of Labor from the domination of capitalism and 
landlordism, with the establishment of social and economic 
equality between the sexes. 

To most people this is a distinction without a differ- 
ence, as a question of principle. The contradictory 
attitude of the Labor Party was really nothing but a 
supposed piece of "smart" diplomacy. It declined to 
make Socialism one of its specific constitutional bases, 
but it declared for the "ultimate aim" of Socialism — 
Collectivism. 

At the ninth annual Congress of the Labor Party, 
held at Portsmouth, January 27-29, 1909, it was decided 
to continue the rule against permitting candidates of 
the Labor Party standing for Parliament as Socialists 
— that is, they must primarily stand as Labor candi- 
dates; but this was simply a matter of party discipline, 
and the situation remains that in a practical sense the 
Parliamentary candidates of the Labor Party are com- 
mitted to Socialism. 

As to Trade Unionism itself, several National Con- 
gresses have passed resolutions of a general Socialist 
nature. In 1894 the Congress at Norwich declared by 
219 to 61, that it was "essential for the maintenance of 
British industries to nationalize the land and all the 
means of production and exchange;" and on a number 
of subsequent occasions resolutions have been passed 



252 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

by Trade Union Congresses in favor of the nationaliza- 
tion of land, mines, and railways. 

In the International Socialist Reviezv (Chicago), of 
October, 1909, H. M. Hyndman, the founder and still 
the leading spirit of the Marxian Social Democratic 
Federation of Great Britain, had a bitter article criticis- 
ing the heterodox Opportunism of the ^British Labor- 
Socialists. He agrees with M. Clemenceau, of France, 
that the English working class is "a bourgeois class/' 
and he adds: 

It is ignorant, prejudiced, anxious to make petty profits 
for itself, and given over, in many cases, especially in the 
north of England and Wales, to the most canting and loath- 
some form of Religionism. Consequently, it has accepted 
in full the political economy of its worst enemies, holds 
that compromise is the highest wisdom, never accepts any 
definite principle with a view to pushing it to a conclusion, 
and believes that there is no way out of the present miserable 
system, because the governing classes say so. 

As to the Independent Labor Party, our critic de- 
clares that "they have been content to accept with grati- 
tude just what the Liberals thought proper to chuck to 
them, and are now being rapidly absorbed into the capi- 
talist Liberal Party;" and he concludes his diatribe by 
the assertion that u the Labor Party in England to-day 
is the greatest obstacle to Socialist progress at home." 

Has Socialism Been Halted? 

In spite of the apparently resistless sweep of Social- 
ism over official Trade Unionism, there is a suspicion 
creeping into the minds of even many Socialists that 
the tide has reached its height, at least, for a time. 
There were two special reasons for the extraordinary 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 253 

development of Socialism among the Trade Unionists, 
apart from the general one of the natural effect of the 
never-ceasing work of propagandism carried on with 
such masterly subtlely by the Socialists, particularly the 
Fabians. The first was the "Taff Vale decision/' in 
1901, by which funds of Trade Unions could be held 
for damages in trade disputes. The Socialists were 
quick to adopt the policy of fanning the deep resent- 
ment aroused by this decision; and the Trade Unionists 
got desperate, and were in a humor to accept anything 
which promised to hit Capitalism on the head. The 
second reason was the terribly bad times industrially 
which had prevailed in England for several years. But 
some of the most level-headed Trade Unionists now 
recognize — although but few are bold enough to pub- 
licly declare it (for organized Labor opinion in Eng- 
land as elsewhere is inclined to be despotic and to be 
intolerant of difference when it has been officially de- 
clared) — that in passing the Trades Disputes Act, in 
1906, Parliament went as far as public opinion would 
stand by way of granting special privileges to organized 
Labor. They could see that even though the Trade 
Unions in their collective capacity at Labor Congresses 
might pass Socialist resolutions (possibly merely a 
"pious opinion," as apologetically stated by some of the 
leaders in reference to the Hull declaration in favor of 
Socialism of the Labor Party, in 1908), yet that did 
not necessarily mean that there had been a further 
growth of Socialism among the working classes gen- 
erally, in an individual sense. They could not fail to 
take note of the unmistakable fact that the British peo- 
ple, irrespective of party, and to some extent irre- 
spective of condition, had become alarmed at the spectre 



254 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

of Socialism which had suddenly confronted them, aris- 
ing from nobody knew where, except it might be the 
abyss of Revolution and Atheism, and was therefore a 
fiend incarnate to the average Britisher. Heretofore, 
the Socialists — whether the bland and suave Fabian or 
the blood-red and fiery Social Democrat — had had the 
controversy all their own way, both in street-corner 
"spouting" and in penny pamphlets and six-penny para- 
disaical accounts of the coming Collective Common- 
wealth, when there will be a minimum of work and a 
maximum of play, with everything given away for noth- 
ing. Now, for the first time, organized opposition to 
Socialism began to appear. It is true that the Socialist 
papers "pooh-pooh" the opposition, and systematically 
tell how the "antis" are always routed in argument. 
But, all the same, the arguments against Socialism are 
getting a hearing. It is beginning to be appreciated 
that there is another side to this question of Socialism. 
In a little time it developed that there were Trade 
Unionists who objected to being compelled to pay the 
election expenses of men for Parliament who stood for 
things, politically, socially and economically, in which 
they did not believe ; and the point was raised that their 
Trade Union was not established nor did they join it 
for any such purpose. So the courts were invoked to 
test the question whether a loyal Trade Unionist can 
be compelled to pay this political assessment if he does 
not want to do so, without subjecting himself to the 
alternative of being expelled from the Union and being 
consigned to the outer darkness of "scabdom," which 
in many trades in England would mean the deprivation 
of the only way to get a living. The Courts have de- 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 



255 



cided against the Trade Unions, and a compromise has 
been reached. 

Statistical returns show that the Socialist organiza- 
tions proper have not grown much in membership 
within recent years, but that the movement owes its 
recent increased strength in Great Britain to the "alli- 
ance" with the Trade Unions. 

; The figures below are taken from the "I. L. P. Year 
Book for 1909," and are therefore official. They show 
the growth of the organizations directly affiliated with 
the Labor Party; but the figures do not include half the 
entire number of British Trade Unionists (particularly 
the miners) : 









Trades 


Socialist 






Trade Unions : 


Councils 


Societies : 


Total 






Member- 


and 


; 


Member- 


Member- 




No. 


ship. 


L. R. C's. 


No. 


ship. 


ship. 


1900- 1 


4i 


353,070 


7 


3 


22,861 


375,931 


1901-2 


65 


455450 


21 


2 


13,861 


469,311 


1902-3 


127 


847,315 


49 


2 


13,835 


861,150 


1903-4 


165 


956,025 


76 


2 


13,775 


969,800 


1904-5 


158 


885,270 


73 


2 


14,730 


900,000 


1905-6 


158 


904,496 


73 


2 


16,784 


921,280 


1906-7 


176 


975,i82 


83 


2 


20,885 


996,067 


1907-8 


181 


1,049,673 


92 


2 


22,267 


1,071,940 



The total membership for 1906-7 includes 2,271 co- 
operators; and for 1907-8 the total membership includes 
473 co-operators. 

It is not possible to give any reliable figures as to the 
membership of the Marxian body, the Social Democratic 
Federation. The total paying membership throughout 
the Kingdom is said to be about 10,000. At the annual 
Conference held at Manchester, in 1908, it was stated 



256 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

that 57 new branches had been established during the 
year. But there are no figures available showing how 
many branches had lapsed, or how the total membership 
stood in comparison with former years. At this Con- 
ference a resolution to re-affiliate with the Labor Party 
was negatived. 

It should be clearly understood that the official paying 
membership of the Socialist organizations only partly 
represent the full Socialist vote at national and local 
elections. 

In the Autumn of 191 1 there was held at Manchester 
a Conference of the "Revolutionary" Marxian Socialists, 
composed of delegates from the Social Democratic 
Party, the newly-formed "British Socialist Party," 
"Clarion" groups, and local branches of the Indepen- 
dent Labor Party. It was notable that no Fabian dele- 
gates were present. Steps were taken to form one con- 
solidated Revolutionary Marxian Party in contradis- 
tinction to the Fabians, "Reformists," or "Opportun- 
ists." This re-organized Revolutionary Marxian Party 
has an enrolled membership of 35,000. 

The Anti-Socialist Movement. 

For some years there have been in existence several 
organizations, headed by members of the House of 
Lords, wealthy "captains of industry," titled landlords, 
and a few college professors, formed for the purpose of 
combating Socialism, particularly in the field of publi- 
cations and public addresses. This "counter" movement 
did not attract much public attention, and it had but 
little influence; in fact, its existence very likely actually 
aided the onward march of Socialism. But there has 
recently been started an attempt to establish a real live, 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 257 

popular movement, by the Anti-Socialist Union of 
Great Britain. The policy of the Anti-Socialist Union 
is summarized in the terms : to organize, to combat, to 
educate. Three departments have been organized in the 
Union, they being the speakers' department, the publi- 
cation department, and the intelligence department. 
Not only have the Socialists been distinguished for con- 
summate political and organizing ability, but for some 
years they have had at their disposal a corps of the most 
adroit and persuasive platform orators and street-cor- 
ner "stumpers" ever organized in Great Britain for any 
purpose, not even excepting the old Chartist days. The 
Anti-Socialist Union seem to fully appreciate this, and 
efforts are being made "to train a special brigade of 
anti-Socialist speakers, capable of meeting and beating 
the Socialists on their own ground." Every prospective 
speaker is required to pass a viva voce examination be- 
fore appearing in public as a representative of the 
Union. In their "alarm call" to arouse the interest of 
the public, the Unions give out that Socialist meetings 
are being held at the rate of two thousand a week in 
Great Britain; that the Independent Labor Party and 
the Social Democratic Federation have 1,100 branches 
— an increase of 350 in eighteen months [this was in 
1908] ; that the Independent Labor Party alone is said 
to spend about £75,000 yearly on organization and 
propagandism, and it is estimated that the total annual 
expenditure on Socialist organization and propaganda 
in Great Britain is between £200,000 and £250,000; that 
there are now ten distinct organizations actively en- 
gaged in propagating Socialism in Engla^ 1 
pendent Labor Party alone having 
speakers and district organizer" 



258 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

gives only a faint idea of the activity of the Socialists. 
Each number of the Clarion, the weekly organ of mili- 
tant Socialism, gives several columns of advertisements 
of lectures, debates, meetings, demonstrations, "socials," 
dances, services at Socialist Churches and Sunday- 
schools, and announcements of gatherings and all sorts 
of functions, literary, political and social, of "Clarion 
Scouts," "Clarion Cycling Clubs," etc. ; and there are 
pages of matter descriptive of the doings of Socialists, 
male and female, young and old. There can be no ques- 
tion, after a perusal of a copy of the Clarion, of the 
absolute earnestness, devotion and enthusiasm of the 
Socialists. 

Within the past year or so several of the old-estab- 
lished anti-Socialist societies, which had not been active 
for some time, have resumed their campaign against the 
enemy. The principal one of these organizations is the 
London Municipal Society, to whose work is to be 
largely attributed the Socialist rout at the municipal elec- 
tions of 1907 in the metropolis. The Municipal Society 
has published two well-written and strong books against 
Socialism— The Case Against Socialism and Socialism 
in Local Government. Other anti-Socialist societies 
which have recently become active are : the Industrial 
Freedom League, the Liberty and Property Defence 
League, the Anti-Socialist League, the Anti-Socialist 
Department of the Liberal-Unionist Council, and the 
British Constitutional Association. Several of these 
organizations have adopted the plan of the Anti-Socialist 
Jnion in maintaining a special department in which 
^trained to meet the professional Socialist 
*et orators. This anti-Socialist cam- 
strengthened lately by the grow- 



BRITISH SOCIALISM 259 

ing revolt of a not insignificant number of Trade Union- 
ists against their societies being "captured" by the So- 
cialists, and particularly against their having been com- 
pelled to pay toward the election expenses and the sala- 
ries of Socialist members of Parliament, although the 
last-named grievance has largely disappeared through 
compromise and the law providing for the payment of 
members. One of the most effective arguments used by 
the anti-Socialist speakers is that the "Socialist tail" 
wags the "Trade Union dog" — reference being had to 
the insignificant number of "definite" Socialists in the 
"alliance" as compared with the great number of Trade 
Unionists. Nevertheless, it remains true that the spirit 
of Socialism has permeated British Trade Unionism; 
although it is by no means unlikely that further ac- 
quaintance with the Marxian philosophy and the logic 
of hard, practical experience will in time lead to a re- 
alignment or a change of attitude in this regard. The 
latest development of the anti-Socialist movement is 
the organization of a Ladies' Brigade of trained public 
speakers. 



CHAPTER XI 

CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 

The Menace of Socialism, by W. Lawler Wilson, is 
the most scorching and one of the strongest of recent 
criticisms. The author insists that Revolution and An- 
archy are the soul and genius of the movement through- 
out the world, no matter in what guise it may present 
itself. The great catastrophe which he argues must 
inevitably come, is imminent, he declares; and as to its 
chief theatre of action, he says : 

The menace of Socialism — whether it takes the form of 
insurrectionary violence, or the gradual corruption of society 
through the undermining of its base in private property — 
is virtually the same for the United States, Canada, or Aus- 
stralia, as for England or Germany. But Europe is the 
principal field of action, because it is the strategic centre of 
the Class War. In Europe the chief scenes in the great 
drama of the proletarian movement have been acted ; in 
Europe the decisive conflict will be fought. 

In Germany. 

While the ultimate goal of Socialism is declared to 
be internationally identical, yet the developments and 
the practical expressions and methods of the operations 
of the Socialist idea differ in different countries. There 
is, indeed, a gradual modification going on — perhaps to 
some extent unconsciously — among Socialists in the 
very conception of Socialism; and nowhere is this pro- 

260 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 261 

cess of modification, both as to theory and practice, 
more marked within the last few years than in Ger- 
many, the classic home of Marxian Socialism. The 
popular belief that Modern Socialism originated in Ger- 
many is an error; but Germany has led all other coun- 
tries in the growth of the Socialist philosophy among 
the masses, although within the last half-dozen years 
England has leaped to the front. All informed students 
of modern history, non-Socialists as much as Socialists, 
will agree with the learned and thoughtful English 
expounder of the movement, Thomas Kirkup {History 
of Socialism) that the "Social Democratic movement in 
Germany is one of the most notable phenomena of our 
time," 

Although the optimistic expectations of Engels as to 
the early overthrow of Capitalism and of the present 
State in Germany have not been justified, yet the growth 
of the Socialist vote in Germany is the most marvellous 
instance of the development of a political party in his- 
tory, not even excepting the Republican Party in the 
United States, in which case there were influences fa- 
voring it which cannot be called political, properly 
speaking. The following table shows the increase of 
the Socialist vote in Germany: 

1867 30,000; 

1877 493>°°°; 

1887 ....... 763,000; 

1892 . 1,876,000 ; 

1897 2,107,000; 

1903 • 3,010,000; 

i9°7 .3,259,000 ; 

1912 4,000,000. 



262 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

At the general election of 1907, the Socialists polled 
almost one-quarter of the total vote, and numerically 
they are now the most important political party in the' 
Empire. In 1903, polling 3,010,771 votes, the Social 
Democrats secured a representation of 82 in the Reich- 
stag (Imperial Parliament). In 1907 the vote was 
3,258,961 — an increase of a quarter of a million of 
votes; but the Socialist representation in the Reichstag 
was only 43 — a loss of 39 seats, as compared with 1903, 
which is to be accounted for partly because of the pecu- 
liar combination of the opposing forces, but principally 
because of the operation of the Imperial Constitution, 
which militates against representation from the cities 
as compared with the country districts, according to 
population — and the Socialist vote is naturally mostly 
in the cities. The unfairness of this Constitutional pro- 
vision is seen in the fact that, although the Roman 
Catholics (who form a separate group called the "Cen- 
tre") polled, in 1907, 1,075,680 less votes than the So- 
cialists, they had 105 representatives — 62 in excess of 
the Socialists; and the Conservatives, who polled less 
than one-third as many votes as the Socialists, secured 
nearly twice as many seats. In 1907 there were about 
2,000 Socialists elected Mayors or members of Com- 
munal or other Councils, although, speaking generally, 
these local elections are not on a democratic basis. 
There are 160 Socialist papers published in Germany, 
78 oi them being dailies, with a combined circulation 
of 1,160,000 in 1910, double that in 1904. A Socialist 
paper for women has a circulation of 85,000. 

Incomplete returns received at this writing indicate 
that in the General Elections of January, 1912, the So- 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 263 

cialists elected — including second ballotings — about no 
members, and cast about 4,000,000 votes. 

The beginnings of German Socialism are associated 
with the names of Johann Gottlieb Fichte (born 1762, 
died 1814), and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (born 
1770, died 1831). Fichte was a follower of Kant and 
advocated the State regulation of the production and 
distribution of goods. In one of his works (Materials 
for the Justification of the French Revolution) he says: 
"Property can have no other origin than labor. Who- 
soever does not work has no right to obtain the means 
of existence from society." Hegel has been called "the 
intellectual father of Karl Marx and of most of the 
early German Socialists." The latter admittedly drew 
most of their ideas from England; but the following 
men stand out prominently in the beginnings of German 
Socialism anterior to the present organization : 

Heinrich Ludwig Lampert Gall (born 1790, died 
1863). He is sometimes called the "first German So- 
cialist." He founded a reformatory colony in America 
(near Harrisburg, Pa.), composed of thieves, har- 
lots and convicts! Of course, it was a failure. Then 
he endeavored to form an international movement 
jointly with Robert Owen, of England, and Fourier and 
Saint-Simon, of France; and in 1835 he wrote a work 
in which the principles of Modern Socialism were out- 
lined. 

Victor Aime Huber (born 1800, died 1869). He was 
the founder of German Christian Socialism, and was a 
strong advocate of Co-operation. 

Johann Karl Rodbertus (born 1805, died 1875). 
Some authorities claim that he was a greater Socialist 



264 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

than even Karl Marx. Prof. Adolf Wagner (a leading 
"Socialist of the Chair" and Christian Socialist) de- 
scribed Rodbertus as "the first, the most original, and 
the boldest representative of Scientific Socialism in Ger- 
many." Rodbertus frankly acknowledged his indebted- 
ness to Adam Smith and Ricardo, the English econo- 
mists. According to Rodbertus, rent is that income 
which is derived by virtue of a possession, and without 
labor; and there is rent from both land and capital. He 
proposed to abolish the present wage-system by sub- 
stituting a "normal" work-day, with a normal form of 
wages. He did not believe in the State limiting the 
hours of labor, his theory being that that was an un- 
justifiable interference with personal liberty, and that 
the increase of wages would regulate that matter. 

Wilhelm Weitling (born 1808, died 1874). He was 
an "Utopian" Socialist, and claimed that he was con- 
verted to Socialism by reading the New Testament, 
although he seems to also have imbibed the theories of 
the French Commune. He came to America in 1847; 
returned to Germany at the Revolution of 1848; and 
afterwards came back to America and founded a So- 
cialist society called the "Arbeiterbund ;" he was also 
interested in a Socialist colony in Wisconsin. His ideal 
form of Utopian Socialism was a federation of the fami- 
lies of the world, with a communistic distribution of the 
products, an extra share of the luxuries being given to 
those who produced more than the average. One writer 
described him as "the connecting link between present- 
day Socialism and its earlier forms." He was the first 
Socialist (at least, in Germany) to make an appeal 
especially to workingmen to support Socialism. 

Hillquit says that the present-day Socialist movement 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 265 

in Germany runs in an unbroken chain from the days 
of Ferdinand Lassalle (born 1825, died 1864). Heine 
called Lassalle "the Messiah of the nineteenth century ;" 
and among the people he was known as the "father of 
Social Democracy." In his youthful days Lassalle was a 
revolutionist, and he was in prison for six months for 
participation in the troubles of 1848; but later he grew 
to be conservative. Like the "Master," Marx, and so 
many other brilliant lights in the economic and especially 
in the Socialist firmament, he was a Jew. "The birth- 
day of German Socialism" is often the name given to 
the date April 12, 1862, when Lassalle lectured before 
an Artisans' Association, at Berlin; and for this speech 
he was arrested and fined. The Leipsic Workingmen's 
Association invited him to define a policy for them, as 
they were uncertain what attitude to adopt with regard 
to Co-operation; and in reply Lassalle wrote them an 
"Open Letter," which is called "the Charter of German 
Socialism," in which he advocated the formation of Co- 
operative societies with State aid. He had a genius 
for organization, and he took an active part in form- 
ing, on May 23, 1863, the Universal German Working- 
man's Association, which afterwards became an integral 
part of the present Social Democratic Party. While, 
of course, the name of Marx holds supreme in Ger- 
many, as elsewhere, as the great philosophical founder 
of Modern Socialism, yet that of Lassalle stands first 
in Germany as the actual originator of the present 
movement in that country. After having studied the 
question from the Hegelian point of view, Lassalle 
learned his first lesson in Revolutionary Socialism at 
Paris, which at that time was the centre of attraction 
for Radicals of all nationalities. His relations with the 



266 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Countess Hatzfeldt "did not," as Kirkup so guardedly 
puts it, "tend to improve Lassalle's position in German 
society. Rightly or wrongly, people had an unfavora- 
ble impression of him, as of an adventurer. . . . His 
conduct was a mixture of chivalry and business, which 
every one must judge for himself. It was certainly not 
in accordance with the conventionalities, but for these 
Lassalle never entertained much respect." Kirkup says 
that Lassalle's Socialism is similar to that of Rodbertus 
and Karl Marx, without Lassalle being a disciple of 
either of them, he having his own way of conceiving and 
expressing historic Socialism. His "Iron Law of 
Wages" is the most distinctive feature of his Socialism. 
"It holds the same prominent place in his system of 
thinking as the theory of surplus value does in that of 
Marx. Both, it may be added, are only different aspects 
of the same fact." Lassalle described as follows (in 
part) this "Law" in the "Open Letter" above referred 
to: "The Iron Economic Law, which, in existing cir- 
cumstances, under the law of supply and demand for 
labor, determines the wage, is this : that the average 
wage always remains reduced to the necessary pro- 
vision which, according to the customary standard of 
living, is required for subsistence and for propagation." 
Further on he says : "From the produce of labor so 
much is taken and distributed among the workmen as is 
required for their subsistence. The entire surplus of 
production falls to the capitalist. It is therefore a result 
of the Iron Law that the workman is necessarily ex- 
cluded from the benefits of an increasing production, 
from the increased productivity of his own labor." Las- 
salle does not claim to have been the discoverer of this 
"Iron Law," but he acknowledges that he accepted it 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 267 

as taught by Ricardo and other economists of England, 
as well as of France and Germany. This theory, how- 
ever, is not now generally accepted even by Socialists. 
Kirkup himself (who is an avowed but a discriminating 
Socialist), says that Lassalle's theory is "inaccurate and 
untenable;" John Spargo (who is more of a Marxian 
than is Kirkup) ridicules Lassalle's "Iron Law." He 
says "there is no such thing." Lassalle acknowledged 
that the "Iron Law" was the keystone of his system, and 
that his doctrines stood or fell with it. The non-So- 
cialist view is strongly put by Prof. Flint, in his analyti- 
cal work, Socialism: "Lassalle's exaggeration of Ri- 
cardo's conclusion is a gross caricature of the real law, 
devoid of theoretical justification, and decisively contra- 
dicted by the history of wages. The law of wages 
tends to press us down to bare subsistence not otherwise 
than water tends to drown us." Prof. Ely says that 
Lassalle's writings did not advance materially the theory 
of social democracy, but he clothed the thoughts of 
Rodbertus and Marx "in such manner as to enable 
ordinary laborers to understand them, and this they 
never could have done without such help. Even for an 
educated man their works are not easy reading; for the 
uneducated they are quite incomprehensible." Hillquit 
gives this high estimate (Socialism in Theory and Prac- 
tice) : "Of extraordinary eloquence, profound learning 
and indomitable energy, Lassalle was probably the most 
powerful popular tribune produced by the nineteenth 
century." It is a remarkable fact that Lassalle had 
the friendship of Bismarck. 

In 1869 a new Socialist party, more strictly Marxian, 
was formed, principally through the efforts of Wilhelm 
Liebknecht and August Bebel. There was a feud be- 



268 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

tween the different Socialist organizations, which was 
terminated in 1875 by their amalgamation at the famous 
Gotha Convention, and the present Social Democratic 
Party was formed; and Liebknecht and Bebel became 
the permanent leaders. After being imprisoned because 
of participation in the revolution of 1848 Liebknecht— 
fled to England, where he became a friend of Marx, 
whose views he espoused. Upon returning to Germany 
he joined Lassalle's agitation, and became leader of the 
International movement; and he was again imprisoned 
several times. 

Bebel has been for many years the leading Socialist 
in the Reichstag; he, also, has been imprisoned. He 
may be considered the greatest living German Socialist 
— and, indeed, in the world — and his speeches are much 
quoted. During the Commune in Paris in 1871 Bebel 
made a speech in the Reichstag, in which was the fol- 
lowing passage: 

Be assured that the entire European proletariat, and all 
that have a feeling for freedom and independence in their 
heart, have their eyes fixed on Paris. And if Paris is for 
the present crushed, I remind you that the struggle in Paris 
is only a small affair of outposts, that the main conflict in 
Europe is still before us, and that ere many decades pass 
away the battle-cry of the Parisian proletariat, war to the 
palace*, peace to the cottage, death to want and idleness, 
will be the battle-cry of the entire European proletariat. 

The German authorities have never forgiven Bebel 
for this speech. 

Modification of German Socialism. 

It is a curious fact that when the Social Democratic 
Party was organized in 1875 it made a declaration, in 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 269 

what has got to be known as "the Gotha Programme," 
which has been widely accepted as "Marxian" in both 
America and England, but which, as a matter of fact, 
was adopted — under pressure from Lassalle — in spite 
of the vehement protest of Marx. The declaration 
referred to is that "Labor is the source of all wealth 
and civilization." This assertion is now admitted by all 
the leading Socialists who understand economics to be 
wrong, and the sentence has been modified in nearly all 
authoritative Socialist declarations, although it is still 
made to do service in the hands of some of the lesser 
responsible writers and speakers, in Socialist news- 
papers, pamphlets, etc., and by street-corner haranguers, 
and in fact is still held as sound Socialism by the great 
proletariat. Spargo is very indignant that critics should 
make "misrepesentations" as to this point. He says : 
"A draft [of the Programme] was submitted to Marx 
and he wrote of it that it was 'utterly condemnable and 
demoralizing to the party.' Of the passage in question, 
he wrote : Tabor is not the source of all wealth. Nature 
is just as much the source of use-values (and of such, to 
be sure, is material wealth composed) as is Labor, which 
itself is but the expression of a natural force, of human 
labor-power.' ' : Nevertheless, the declaration as ob- 
jected to by Marx stood at the head of the programme 
of the German Social Democracy for many years. 

The same paragraph of the Programme contained an- 
other declaration around which there has waged a warm 
warfare between different schools of German and Eng- 
lish Socialists, it being to the effect that the division of 
the products of Labor "belongs by an equal right to all 
its members, each according to his reasonable needs/' 
There is much dispute as to whether true Marxian Social- 



270 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

ism should not read "deeds' instead of "needs!' Most 
of the "persuasive" sort of Socialists, anticipating the 
criticism which attaches to the Communistic needs, are 
careful to explain that under Socialism rewards will be 
given and supplies furnished according to deeds. But, 
there is ample warrant for the statement that the trencL 
of intellectual thorough-going Revolutionary-Socialism, 
English and American as well as German, is in the direc- 
tion of doling out supplies according to needs; indeed, 
not to be Communistic in this regard, would, according 
to some Socialists, have the effect of creating "classes'' 
under Socialism. 

These declarations of the Gotha Programme have been 
such bones of contention not only between anti-Socialists 
and Socialists, but among Socialists themselves, that the 
entire paragraph is here given: 

I. Labor is the source of all wealth and civilization, and 
since productive labor as a whole is made possible only in 
and through society, the entire produce of labor belongs 
to society; that is, it belongs by an equal right to all its 
members, each according to his reasonable needs, upon con- 
dition of a universal obligation to labor. 

In 1878 attempts on the life of the Emperor were made 
by Socialists, and Bismarck applied coercive measures. 
Up to a certain point these measures appear to have been 
successful in repressing Socialism, and it is not unlikely 
that they prevented a rebellion. But Bismarck extended 
coercion beyond a reasonable time, and the natural result 
followed. Socialism, after a period of disorganization, 
arose stronger than ever, and in 1890 it polled 1,427,000 
votes, and thus became the strongest single party in the 
Empire. But while the Socialist vote was increasing, 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 271 

and has been increasing ever since, there has been a proc- 
ess of not only a change in tactics but of a modification 
of theories going on. The truth is that strict Marxian 
Socialism has not been able to stand against the streams 
of criticism which have been turned upon it in Germany, 
and which have only within recent years been active in 
England and America ; and these streams did not all have 
anti-Socialist sources. In Germany the gradual shedding 
of the Marxian shell has come about through the opera- 
tion of a stupendous and ponderous course of philosoph- 
ical reasoning ; in England the "Fabianization" of Social- 
ism has come about in a natural and characteristic way, 
simply by the operation of the national spirit of Compro- 
mise and Opportunism. 

The first problem as to tactics which confronted the 
Social Democracy of Germany was in regard to the atti- 
tude it should adopt towards Bismarck's Sta^ Socialism, 
which is often denounced by Socialists in the Fatherland 
as "State Capitalism/' [State and Municipal Socialism 
is treated of in a separate chapter.] 

Of recent years the tendency in Germany has been to 
drift away from the strict doctrinaire Revolutionary So- 
cialism, and to adopt a policy of Opportunism, although 
the legions of Bebel and Kautsky still declare for Col- 
lectivism, to come about by the "class-conscious" strug- 
gle of the proletariat. There is a faction among the 
German Socialists who are revolutionary to the extent of 
being Anarchistic, and they object to the Opportunist tac- 
tics and to the "parliamenting" of present-day Socialism. 
Some of these malcontents were expelled from the Social 
Democratic Party ; they endeavored to form a new party, 
the Union of Independent Socialists, but they have not 
been able to enroll many members, although no doubt 



272 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

there is great dissatisfaction with the present policy of the 
Social Democratic Party. 

In 1891 Engels published for the first time the "Mar- 
ginal Notes" of Marx on the Gotha Programme. The 
criticisms contained therein caused some embarrassment 
to the official leaders of the Social Democratic Party and_ 
to the Socialist members of the Reichstag ; and it is said 
that it was owing to these criticisms of Marx which 
caused a revision of the platform, at Erfurt, October 14- 
20, 1 89 1. It is claimed that the Erfurt platform was a 
victory of Marxism over the principles of Lassalle; but 
the ascendency of Marxism did not last long unchal- 
lenged. The critics of Marxism were headed by George 
von Vollmar and E. Bernstein ; their school is known as 
the "Revisionist" or Evolutionary wing, and their posi- 
tion with regard to State Socialism and ameliorative 
measures is similar to that taken by the English Fabians. 
To harmonize the differences, and to present a united 
front to their critics on the outside, the Social Democratic 
Party in 1892 passed a resolution which, while it repudi- 
ated State Socialism by name, accepted it in fact as 
"some trifling part payment." Bernstein went further 
than Vollman, and took issue with the fundamental doc- 
trines laid down by Marx and Engels, not only with re- 
gard to "the materialistic theory of history," but also as 
to the great "kladderadatsch" — the cataclysm which is to 
destroy the present social and industrial system and bring 
in the Collective Commonwealth. Arrayed against Voll- 
mar and Bernstein were Liebknecht, Bebel and Kautsky. 
The agreement made between the different schools of 
German Socialism is a sort of patch- work arrangement: 
one pronouncement is for a straight-out, uncompromis- 
ing "class-conscious" Revolutionary Socialism, while an 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 273 

accompanying one is practically for Fabian Opportunism ; 
and the subsequent developments are increasingly in the 
latter direction. 

One wing of the Social Democracy opposed any par- 
ticipation in elections, holding that the act of voting was 
a submission by the proletariat to the existing capitalistic 
regime; another wing tolerated participation in elections 
simply as a means of agitation for the purpose of educat- 
ing the workingmen in the principles of Socialism, but 
this wing opposed participation in Parliamentary activi- 
ties; another wing favored political alliances with other 
Parliamentary groups or political parties, with the view 
of securing a particular object, and these compromisers 
were denounced as traitors to true Socialism. In the 
wordy discussions which took place over these differ- 
ences, particularly in regard to Trade Unions and Co- 
operation, it became manifest that the opposition to these 
rival movements arose largely from the fear that they 
would bring about such an improved condition among the 
working people that they would lose their interest in the 
theories of Socialism. This was also the case in Eng- 
land. 

On all these points of difference there have been modi- 
fications — and in some respects an actual transformation 
— of the original position taken by the German Social 
Democratic Party ; and now it no longer holds good that 
the Social Democracy is a strictly orthodox Marxian 
party. Still, it clings to the "class-conscious" formula, 
and especially to the "ultimate aim" — the common owner- 
ship of the means of production and the social organiza- 
tion of production and exchange ; and as an organization 
the Social Democracy isolates itself from other political 
parties. 



27 A WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Collectivism, by Paul Leroy Beaulieu, is placed (at 
least by non-Socialists) at the front of recent masterly 
criticisms of Marxian Socialism. In that work Beaulieu 
presents a summary and analysis of Bernstein's argument 
against Collectivism, comparing it with that made by 
Jean Leon Jaures, the leader of the present reorganized 
French Socialists ; and he proceeds : " . . . Jaures 
himself has abandoned, on more than one point, the theo- 
ries of Marx, and has recognized the falsity of his 
prophecies. Kautsky, in Germany, and still more, 
Guesde, in France, are, exclusive of the aged Bebel, al- 
most the only avowed upholders of unadulterated Marx- 
ism at the present time." Beaulieu considers that by 
Bernstein's "destructive criticism" of the Marxian doc- 
trine " 'Scientific Socialism' is finally destroyed, and the 
idol before which two generations have prostrated them- 
selves vanishes and leaves no trace." 

The controversy between the two schools of German 
Socialism was very bitter in 1910, and for the time being 
caused a rupture. 

The organization of Social Democratic women is ad- 
vancing by leaps and bounds in Germany. It com- 
menced in 1906; in 1909 there were 62,000 enrollments; 
in 191 1 there were 100,000. 

In May, 1910, there was a law passed controlling the 
potash trade, which a writer in the Atlantic Monthly 
(July, 191 1 ) declares "goes further in the direction of 
Socialism than any previous legislation in Germany." 
Incidentally this law has been the subject of diplomatic 
exchanges between Washington and Berlin, a claim hav- 
ing been set up by some American concessionaires that 
the law amounted to a repudiation of contracts. This 
law assigns to each potash mine a certain percentage of 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 275 

the total product of the country, and lays a prohibitory 
tax upon what it produces in excess of that allotment. 
It fixes the maximum price for the home market and 
prohibits selling abroad at a lower price. Wages cannot 
be reduced without the consent of the employees — other- 
wise the allotment of output is restricted. 

The writer in the Atlantic Monthly observes that in 
Germany "the individual withers/' and the State is 
"more and more." 

French Socialism. 

While, to the Anglo-American mind, German Social- 
ism is generally associated with philosophical profundity, 
French Socialism is nearly always associated with vio- 
lence and bloodshed. And yet, France shares with Eng- 
land the distinction of being the birth-place of the Philo- 
sophical, the Utopian, and the Christian phases of Social- 
ism. Kirkup, in An Enquiry into Socialism, notes that 
John Stuart Mill has narrated in his autobiography how 
the growth of his opinions was affectw by the discus- 
sions of French Socialism. Before 1848 Paris was the 
centre of Socialist and revolutionary ideas. In the mid- 
dle of the 18th century was a French economist named 
Morelly (or Morelli or Morellet), whose writings were 
influential in forming the theories of the French Revolu- 
tion ; and his ideas were for a time mistakenly attributed 
to Diderot Morelly's Code of Nature was the inspira- 
tion of the Socialism of Frangois Noel Babeuf (born 
1764, guillotined in May, 1797), self-styled Caius Grac- 
chus. Victor Cathrein, the Jesuit critic of Socialism, 
says in his standard Catholic work, that Babeuf was "the 
first to raise the standard of modern Socialism." Ac- 
cording to Babeuf's theory of Communism "the aim of 



276 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

society is the happiness of all, and happiness consists in 
equality/' How Babeuf influenced the thought of his 
times can be seen by the fact that the French Constitu- 
tion of 1793 declared: "All men are equal by nature;" 
and "the purpose of Society is universal happiness." 
The basis of Babeuf s system was equality, and to realize 
this equality he formulated the following demands — and 
it will be observed how Babeuf anticipated later Social- 
ists : Every one was to be obliged to work ; the time of 
work was to be determined by law ; production was to 
be regulated by a supreme committee elected by the peo- 
ple ; necessary work was to be allotted to the citizens ; 
disagreeable jobs were to be performed in turn by every 
citizen ; each citizen was to have a right to all commodi- 
ties, which were to be distributed according to his needs. 
Truly does Cathrein remark: "At bottom Babeuf s de- 
mands are identical with those formulated by Bebel and 
other modern Socialists." 

[The Socialism of the French Utopians, Cabet, Saint- 
Simon and Fourier, is treated of elsewhere in this vol- 
ume.] 

Utopianism was followed by political Socialism, and 
the name of Louis Blanc (born 181 1, died 1882) comes 
up as that of "the first State Socialist." To this day 
there is disagreement as to whether the French Govern- 
ment was responsible for the failure of Louis Blanc's 
"National Workshops." Blanc and his party advocated 
the droit au travail — the right of laborers to demand 
work from the government if they could not find it else- 
where. Such an authority as Prof. Ely, in French and 
German Socialism, asserts that official documents prove 
that the real purpose of the French Ministers in making 
a pretext of carrying out the droit an travail by the erec- 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 277 

tion of ateliers sociawx (social workshops) was to dis- 
credit Louis Blanc and cause the scheme to fail, and thus 
to demonstrate its impracticability. But there is incon- 
trovertible testimony that the scheme was inherently 
wildly impracticable. That it was a tragic failure is a 
matter of history, and its aftermath was a bloody drama ; 
the frenzied disappointed unemployed broke out in a 
saturnalia of insurrection, and 3,000 were killed in the 
fighting against the government forces, and over 3,000 
were transported to Algeria. 

The great figure in French Socialism next to Blanc is 
that of Pierre Joseph Proudhon (born 1809, died 1865). 
His name is forever connected with his promulgation of 
the doctrine that "property is theft/' although he did not 
originate it. Says Prof. Ely : "Proudhon was the first to 
attempt to prove directly and scientifically that private 
property per se was a monstrosity — was robbery." 
Proudhon considered private property the greatest obsta- 
cle to Communism. In his ideal society there would be 
the most absolute equality of remuneration ; the duration 
of labor was the only just measure of value; and com- 
pensation should be equal for the same duration of labor, 
independent of the skill or knowledge required, or the 
nature of the labor. Next to his famous declaration as 
to private property, Proudhon is chiefly known as the 
father of Philosophic Anarchism. 

For some years after the Paris Commune there was 
but little heard of Socialism in France. In 1878 the Gen- 
eral Trade Union Congress at Lyons endorsed Socialist 
candidates, and a number of the Unions declared for the 
entire Socialist programme; and in 1879 tne General 
Trade Union Congress itself pronounced for Socialism. 
Since then there have been a number of "splits" on the 



278 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

old troublesome question of Opportunism and of advo- 
cating ameliorative legislation versus strict Marxian So- 
cialism. These disagreements divided the party until 
1905, when there was a union formed of the various 
groups and schools under the name of Parti Socialist de 
France, or Le Parti Socialist. 

The growth of Socialism in France is shown by the 
increase of the Socialist vote in Parliamentary elections 
cast in the years given below : 

1885 ,.. 30.000; 

1887 47,ooo; 

1889 120,000; 

1893 440,000 ; 

1898 700,000 ; 

1902 805,000 ; 

1906 ... . 1,000,000. 

At the general elections in 1910 the United Socialists 
increased their representation in the Chamber of Depu- 
ties from 54 to 76. 

There was general surprise when the President of 
France selected a Socialist, M. Briand, to form a Cabi- 
net ; and there were forebodings when the new Premier 
called upon two Socialist comrades, MM. Millerand and 
Viviani, to be his colleagues. It was the prevailing as- 
sumption that France had again embarked upon the sea 
of Socialism. This expectation, however, has not been 
realized ; the present Cabinet is not Socialist, but, if any- 
thing, it is rather the reverse. The Socialism of M. 
Briand is "a thing of the past," at least while he is Pre- 
mier of France ; and in a great strike of railroad men in 
1910 he splendidly demonstrated the fact that he was the 
Chief Executive of the Republic. Like John Burns, the 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 279 

British Socialist (as a working man), he became a con- 
servative when he assumed the responsibilities of office; 
and, like John Burns, he is often called a "turn-coat" by 
his old comrades. At present Premier Briand is not con- 
sidered a Socialist. M. Millerand — a member o f the 
Cabinet — was "excommunicated" by the Socialists and 
the Masonic lodges several years ago ; and as to M. 
Viviani (who is Minister of Labor), he appears to be an 
Opportunist Social Reformer rather than a Socialist. 
Still, as an English critic has pointed out, not one of 
these three high officials of the French Government has 
so far as publicly known recanted the Collectivist views 
formerly avowed. 

In November, 191 1, two notable figures in International 
Socialism, M. Lafargue and his wife Laura — a daughter 
of Karl Marx — committed suicide by taking prussic acid. 
M. Lafargue was 69 years of age. He was one of the 
leaders of Marxism in France. In a letter to Jules 
Guesde, the anti-Militarist leader, M. Lafargue explained 
that he was about to take his life to escape senile decay. 
Madame Lafargue committed suicide because she did not 
wish to survive her husband. It is an extraordinary and 
tragic coincidence that Mme. Lafargue's sister Eleanor 
committed suicide in London, in March, 1898. She was 
a very brilliant woman, and married a well-known Eng- 
lish Socialist, Dr. Edward Aveling. It is said that the 
cause of her suicide was domestic unhappiness. It is due 
to the memory of Kiarl Marx himself to say that his 
domestic life and personal conduct were beyond reproach. 

The Movement in Austria. 

Socialism in Austria-Hungary was introduced from 
Germany. The greatest obstacle to its spread in the 



280 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

dual-empire is that of race and national prejudices. It 
has developed mostly among the German speaking popu- 
lation, but the party is organized on a basis of national 
autonomy and international solidarity, and there are Ger- 
man, Czech, Polish, Italian, Slavic and Ruthenian sec- 
tions. Arising out of the Revolution of 1848 there were 
efforts to secure social reform, and in 1859 an industrial 
code was adopted, the special object of which was to re- 
store the relations of the manufacturers and workmen 
with the guilds, but the attempt was a failure. The Labor 
Party of Austria is Socialistic. In 1867 a partial right 
of assembly and association was granted ; this was fol- 
lowed by a development of the movement, and the Work- 
ingmen's Mutual Improvement Society was formed that 
year. There w r as a division in 1868, and Anarchism 
manifested itself ; indeed, there has always been consider- 
able Anarchism in Austrian Socialism. Through the ab- 
sorption of the Trade Union element there came a revival 
of Socialism, and in 1888 the party (with the exception 
of the Anarchists) united upon the principles of Marxian 
Socialism. In 1892 the Social Democrats expelled the 
Revolutionists, who thereupon joined the Anarchists. In 
Hungary there are two branches of the Socialist organi- 
zation — one among the industrial workers, and the other 
among the agricultural laborers and the non-Hungarian 
rationalists. Within the last few years there has been 
considerable strength shown in Austria by a Roman 
Catholic Christian Socialist organization, under Prince 
John of Lichtenstein, and in Hungary by the Christian 
Laborers (a union of Christian Trade Unionists) — both 
of which are for the purpose of promoting social reform, 
but are opposed to the International Social Democracy. 
Largely because of the agitation carried on by the Social 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 281 

Democrats, universal suffrage was granted, and at the 
general election of 1907 the Social Democrats elected 
87 deputies to the Reichsrath, — a fifth of the whole Cham- 
ber — they polling 1,041,948 votes, nearly a third of the 
total vote cast. One of the most impressive public dem- 
onstrations ever held in any country by the proletariat 
was that held under the auspices of the Social Democracy 
at Vienna, on November 28, 1905, in favor of universal 
suffrage. 

The Social Democratic Party of Austria-Hungary is 
strongly anti-Semitic, principally because the Jews have 
become the greatest land-owners in that country, and are 
the financial creditors of the peasantry. The Jews own 
one-quarter of the land in Hungary, and a single Jewish 
family, that of the Rothschilds, owns one-third of all Bo- 
hemia; the Jews are also large employers of labor, and 
they are said not to be good employers. But in the 
neighboring country of Roumania Socialism is very 
largely a movement promoted by the Jewish proletariat. 
The most prominent Austrian name in connection with 
Socialism is that of Dr. Albert Eberhard Friedrich 
Schaffle, formerly Minister of Commerce. His Quintes- 
sence of Socialism is considered by many authorities, both 
Socialist and anti-Socialist, to be the ablest exposition of 
Marxism ever written, not even excepting that by Engels. 
There have always been much uncertainty and specula- 
tion as to the actual personal views on Socialism held by 
Dr. Schaffle. Most certainly, after reading his Quintes- 
sence, one is almost justified in assuming that he is a con- 
vinced Socialist; but this he denies in his subsequent 
Impossibility of Social Democracy, which, except in two 
or three particulars (especially his monarchial bias) is 
accepted by most authorities as the keenest and most log- 



282 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

ical refutation of Marxian philosophy ever published. 
In all literature it would be difficult to match Dr. Schaf- 
fle's Quintessence of Socialism and his Impossibility of 
Social Democracy, as a case of the poison and the anti- 
dote being prescribed by the same physician. 

Italian Socialism. 

No other American writer understands the Continental 
proletariat better than the brilliant Robert Hunter does. 
In his Socialists at Work he asserts that Socialism has 
taken hold of the masses of Italy in a way that cannot 
be paralleled in many other countries, and this he attri- 
butes to the brutalizing and oppressive policy of the 
upper classes, and he says that hatred, suspicion and fear 
are the only sentiments that can exist between them and 
the poor people. In Italy — as indeed, in all Latin coun- 
tries — the ffear of Socialism has become almost a mania. 
Hunter continues : 

In talking with well-to-do men, one frequently hears it 
said, with a kind of despair, that Socialism is inevitable. 
. . . . In considering the Italian movement, one must al- 
ways bear in mind the history and tradition of Italy. It has 
ever been a land of conspiracy, revolution and guerrilla war- 
fare. "The psychology of Italy," an Italian author has said, 
"permits a vehement tendency to murder. This form of 
crime is only rarely disclaimed by the national morale; it is 
often glorified; and many of our moralists admit that the 
assassination of a compatriot sometimes resolves itself into 
a duty to the community." The history of all its political 
struggles, of all its uprisings against oppression, shows a 
tendency to run to extreme violence, even under the guid- 
ance of humanitarians such as Mazzini, Garibaldi, or the 
present-day Socialist leaders. It should also be borne in 
mind that the Italians were among the first in Europe to 
accept the Anarchist views of Bakounine, 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 283 

Until the extension of the franchise in 1882 the An- 
archists were the most important of the different groups 
participating in the workingmen's movements in Italy. 
Unlike their British, American and German comrades, 
the Italian Trade Unionists are largely in sympathy with 
the Anarchistic revolutionary school of Socialists ; and in 
this particular the Italian Trade Unionists are like the 
French. The Italian Revolutionists are called "Syndical- 
ists/' because they believe that the "Syndicates" (which 
is the Italian name for the Trade Unions) are the sole 
hope for the overthrow of the present industrial and 
political conditions. [Of recent years "Syndicalism" has 
also become an active phase of French Socialism.] Since 
1906 — when the policy of the Italian Opportunists or Re- 
formers was approved by five-sixths of the party — the 
anti-physical-force Revolutionary school have taken the 
name of "Integralists." In 1907 the "Syndicalists," in 
conjunction with the Trade Unionists, by an almost 
unanimous vote, resolved upon complete secession from 
the Socialist Party. During 1908 the bickerings between 
the different Socialist parties continued, although an at- 
tempt was made at a national convention at Florence to 
patch up the divisions, so that the various groups could 
present a united front to the common enemy. The two 
great heroes of Italy, Garibaldi and Mazzini, were both 
Republicans and Revolutionists, but they were not Social- 
ists, and the latter opposed the policy of both the two 
patriots. Mazzini believed in association as opposed to 
competition ; but he also believed in self-sacrifice, and his 
watchwords included "duties," as well as "rights;" and 
while Socialism has a great deal to say about "rights," it 
knows no such word as "duties." After a number of 
abortive attempts, a national party was formed in 1892, 



284 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

and it was then that the Socialists formally withdrew 
from the Anarchists. In addition to the division as to 
Anarchism, there have been continued and bitter contro- 
versies in regard to the interminable question of the 
policy toward immediate reforms and parliamentary ac- 
tion; but with all the internal turmoils of the Italian 
Socialists they have rendered signal service to their coun- 
try by exposing official corruption. 

In 191 1 the Italian Socialists made an unsuccessful 
attempt to arouse public sentiment against the govern- 
ment expedition for the conquest of Tripoli. 

Russia's Revolutionary Socialism. 

Revolution, Nihilism, Anarchism : these words are gen- 
erally used to describe Socialism in Russia. Ensor, in 
his Modern Socialism, claims that "Socialism has played 
a great part in the upheaval in Russia." Coming from 
an accepted authority, this is a rather loose statement. 
There is very little real Socialism in Russia, that is, eco- 
nomic-political Socialism, as the term is understood in 
America, Germany or England. It may be said, indeed, 
that terrorism is a feature of all Russian political parties ; 
yet terrorism, even though in recent times it has been 
associated with Socialism, would have existed just as 
violently and would have been just as chronic, had Marx 
never written Capital. It is absolutely impossible to com- 
pile a history of Socialism in Russia without including a 
resume of desperate, bloody protests and struggles 
against cruel despotism, on each side the most terrible 
to be found in history ; and the difficulty is in separating 
the agitation for Socialism, pure and simple, from this 
awful record. Even Socialists — that is, Germans, Eng- 
lishmen and Americans, of the prevailing "constitutional" 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 285 

type — seem in despair when talking or writing about 
Socialism in Russia. Of course, a general review of the 
situation in Russia at the present day as compared to 
what it was twenty years ago, affords some slight reason 
for hopefulness for a better state of things ; but at the 
same time, the way is strewn with disappointments. It 
seems as if even such a beneficent act as the Emancipa- 
tion of the Serfs, in 1861, has had a curse attached to it. 
Before then, Nihilism did not represent violence, but 
popular education; the Nihilists founded Sunday-schools 
and reading circles, although at the earliest period of 
their history revolutionary Socialism was popular among 
them. One Russian writer describes Nihilism as "a fatal 
unbelief in everything;" another calls it "the spirit of 
intellectual revolt." Nihilism seems to be a very part of 
the Russian nature — bred therein by centuries of oppres- 
sion. Diderot explains that the extravagant tempera- 
ment of the Russian people is owing to the fact that "they 
were rotten before they were ripe." There can be no 
doubt that the chief, if not the exclusive reason for the 
awful sanguinary disposition of nearly all political and 
social reformers in Russia is owing to the system of gov- 
ernment — the most despotically oppressive in all modern 
history. The Germans describe the governmental system 
of Russia as being that of a "Functionary State" and not 
a "Law State" — that is, it is a government by arbitrary 
functionaries, and not by legal enactments. The emanci- 
pation of the serfs has not been an unmixed blessing, 
even to the peasants themselves. They have not as much 
land as they had before emancipation, and they do not re- 
ceive as much of the produce of their labor as before. 
One of the greatest of the Revolutionary Socialists, Alex- 
ander Hertzen (born 1812, died 1870), was of the opinion 



286 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

that Russia's deliverance would come by the application 
of the operations of the "Mir" to the national govern- 
ment of the Empire. Hertzen was a friend of Bakounin, 
the Revolutionary Anarchist, and he imbibed his princi- 
ples. Naturally he got into trouble with the government, 
and was treated as a "dangerous person;" then he went 
to London and published a political and social paper 
called the Kolokol (Bell). After witnessing some of the 
Continental revolutions of 1848 Hertzen settled perma- 
nently in England, and from his retreat he addressed a 
letter (which has become famous) to the new Czar, Alex- 
ander II, urging him to give the people a more liberal 
government than his father, Nicholas, had done. In his 
younger days Hertzen believed in Socialism as the new 
"terrestrial religion," in which there was to be neither 
God nor heaven; in which all government, human or 
Divine, was to be absent. "Christianity," he averred, 
"made the slave a son of man ; the Revolution has eman- 
cipated him into a citizen. Socialism would make him 
a man." But after being in England some time he grew 
away from these extreme revolutionary views; and to 
the young Russian exiles who would visit him he would 
say, "Our black earth needs a deal of draining." The 
friend of his youth, Bakounin, still an Anarchist, saw 
him in London, and found that Hertzen and he had 
parted company as to their opinions in regard to the re- 
generation of society and the way it should be brought 
about. Shortly before his death, Hertzen wrote a letter, 
full of dignified pathos, which was a renunciation of his 
former violent sentiments. The letter was presumably 
written to Bakounin, and both Socialists and anti-Social- 
ists must agree that in its way it is a classic. Although 
Hertzen's influence with his fellow-countrymen waned 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 287 

after his adoption of the principles of gradual reforma- 
tion and amelioration in the place of those of physical- 
force Revolution, yet this letter is worthy to be treasured 
and kept in mind by Russian patriots of the present gen- 
eration. He said : 

I will own that one day, surrounded by dead bodies, by 
houses destroyed with balls and bullets, and listening fever- 
ishly as prisoners were being shot down, I called with my 
whole heart and intelligence upon the savage force of ven- 
geance to destroy the old criminal world, without thinking 
much of what was to come in its place. Since that time 
twenty years have gone by; the vengeance has come, but it 
has come from the other side, and it is the people who have 
borne it, because they comprehended nothing either then or 
since. A long and painful interval has given time for pas- 
sions to calm, for thoughts to deepen ; it has given the neces- 
sary time for reflection and observation. Neither you nor 
I have betrayed our convictions; but we see the question 
now from a different point of view. You rush ahead, as you 
did before, with a passion of destruction, which you take for 
a creative passion ; you crush every obstacle ; you respect 
history only in the future. As for me, on the contrary, I 
have no faith in the old revolutionary methods, and I try to 
comprehend the march of men in the past and in the pres- 
ent, to know how to advance with them without falling be- 
hind, but without going on so far before as you, for they 
would not follow me — they could not follow me! 

As Prof. Rae (Contemporary Socialism) observes: 
"Bakounin was more in unison with the troubled spirit 
of the times" than was Hertzen. Bakounin has been de- 
scribed as the embodiment of a revolutionist. He was 
active in the International, and in connection with that 
organization he wrote : "We wish to destroy all states 
and all churches, with all their institutions and laws, 
. . . in order that all these millions of poor human 



288 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

beings . . . may henceforth and forever breathe in 
absolute freedom. " 

It is not within the scope of this work to give even an 
outline of the revolutionary movement in Russia, for the 
reason that, properly speaking, as explained above, it 
should be considered as only incidental to economic Mod- 
ern Socialism, and furthermore, it is part of the national 
history of the Russian people, running through many 
generations, quite independent of the theory and practice 
of economic Socialism. When Russia had developed in- 
dustrially, then economic Socialism, of the Marxian kind, 
came in from Germany. Probably had the Russian Gov- 
ernment and the Czar shown even a modicum of discern- 
ing sense of the irresistible tendencies of the times, So- 
cialism would have developed along saner lines than it 
has done, and much sorrow and bloodshed would have 
been spared. Apart from the question whether Father 
Gapon was an honest and sincere friend of the people — 
which, in view of the after-revelations, seems a violent 
assumption — the young Czar had one of the greatest op- 
portunities which the Almighty ever put into the hands 
of a monarch to bless his subjects and to secure for all 
time their loyal allegiance. But the fateful January 22, 
1905, when Gapon's petition was met with a butchery of 
the poor unsuspecting people, has, at least for an indefi- 
nite period, killed non-physical-force Socialism, and has 
turned it into the bloody and secret channels of the old- 
style Anarchism. The mutinies among the sailors and 
soldiers of Russia, the futile "general strike" of the rail- 
road workers, the granting of a sham constitution and 
the assembling of a supposed Parliament of the people, 
and its dismissal because it dared to show that it thought 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 289 

it was a free assemblage — these events, following in 
rapid succession, are almost too recent to be history. 

Russian Socialism is divided into three schools, or 
rather parties : ( 1 ) the Socialist Revolutionary Party ; 

(2) the Social Democratic Party, which is Marxian; and 

(3) the Bund, composed of the Jewish proletariat. In 
regard to the land programme of the Socialist Revolu- 
tionary Party, which is for absolute confiscation, the 
agrarian population is in sympathy with it, and the Labor 
Group also acts with the Revolutionists. In the first 
Duma the proposition to socialize the land received only 
33 votes, while in the second it received 105. The Social 
Revolutionists are devoting themselves to the peasantry, 
as they consider that the salvation of Russia must come 
through them. Although the Social Democrats are Op- 
portunist to a certain extent, yet their goal is a Collec- 
tivist Republic, and for the accomplishment of this end 
they are agitating for universal suffrage. 

Among the influences making for Socialism in Russia 
is the existence of some thirteen millions of "heretics," 
the majority of whom are divided into various religious 
sects, although a considerable number are free-thinkers. 
While as a class they are not political revolutionists, yet 
they are "reformers :" they condemn luxury and the accu- 
mulation of great wealth, they declaim against war and 
militarism, and declare for fraternity and mutual assist- 
ance. 

In 1869 a number of secret societies amalgamated un- 
der the name of the Russian Branch of the International 
Workingmen's Association. In 1866 a member of one 
of these secret societies made the first attempt on the life 
of the Czar ; and in 1873 eighty-seven persons were tried 



290 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

for belonging to the International. By this time German 
economic Socialism was permeating Russia ; a large edi- 
tion of Marx's Capital was sold, and mothers had their 
children baptized in the name of Lassalle. But Social- 
ism proper was soon drawn into the Nihilistic maelstrom, 
and Russian Anarchists, not content with their activi- 
ties at home, organized and participated in revolutionary 
outbreaks in France. 

Charles Lapworth has a supplementary chapter in 
Hunter's Socialists at Work, giving an account of the 
recent movement in some of the Continental countries. 
As to the situation in Russia he says that "the brief and 
eventful career of the Duma has clearly demonstrated 
that under normal conditions, and with universal suf- 
frage, the Socialists would be in possession of govern- 
mental power." As to the first and second Dumas, the 
confidence which the autocracy had put in the peasants 
was altogether misplaced; for — 

Instead of supporting reaction, the peasants sent their own 
representatives to parliament. The government, therefore, 
changed completely the "constitution," so that the effect of 
the third election to the Duma is that an absolute majority 
is given into the hands of 135,000 of landed proprietors and 
rich bourgeois. Thus the parliament is composed of the 
privileged classes and their creatures. The new electoral 
law has given nearly three-fourths of the seats to the nobles, 
one-fourth to the rich bourgeois, leaving only a twentieth to 
the other classes. The erstwhile Socialist members have 
been sent to Siberia or to prison. And the struggle goes 
on. 

In Finland, a province of Russia, enjoying certain 
rights and privileges not the property of the rest of the 
Empire, universal suffrage was recently granted to 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 291 

women as well as to men, and at the first election there- 
under 80 Socialists obtained seats, out of a total mem- 
bership of 200, nine of them being women; and in 1908 
the number of Socialists elected was 83. The Social 
Democratic Party was organized in 1903. The police 
will not allow any publications of the Social Democracy 
to be circulated. In 1905 the party had 50,000 paying 
members, of whom 10,000 were women. The conces- 
sion of universal suffrage was forced from the Russian 
Government by an extraordinary and bold proceeding 
by the Finnish people. They proclaimed a "general 
political strike," formed practically a new provincial gov- 
ernment, with a complete set of state departments, and 
everything went on its orderly way; and this brought 
St. Petersburg to terms. 

In 1909 the Czar of Russia visited several foreign 
countries, and the Socialists — acting on a circular letter 
of the International Bureau — made vehement protests 
wherever he went. 

On September 14, 191 1, a terrorist named Bogrof 
assassinated Premier Stolypin by shooting him. It 
seems clear that he was forced to commit the crime under 
threat of death for treachery to "the cause/' it being 
claimed that he was a police spy receiving a salary of $92 
a month from the Government. Bogrof was executed 
privately within a few days. 

In Poland the Socialists act with the German organi- 
zation. 

Belgian Socialism. 

"The battle-ground of Europe" has many aspects of 
interest in connection with the subject matter of this 
book. It is the smallest country in Europe; it is the 



292 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

most densely populated in the world ; in no other country 
in the world is so large a proportion of the population 
engaged in purely industrial pursuits, manufacturing be- 
ing by far the most important source of wealth ; the per 
capita of exportations is the largest in the world; the 
population is the most illiterate in Europe; Belgium has 
more railroad mileage in proportion to the total square 
mileage than any other country in the world; it is the 
country from which Marx and Engels first issued their 
Communist Manifest®, in 1848 ; and it is the "Paradise of 
Capitalists." Surely, if there was ever rich soil for the 
growth of Socialism anywhere, it is Belgium. Yet, con- 
sidering the long-continued and ever-strenuous efforts 
put forth, the growth of Socialism, in a political sense, 
in that country, has not been remarkable. But this fact, 
it should be explained, is owing largely, if not altogether, 
to the peculiar conditions attached to the franchise in 
that country. There is what is described as universal 
suffrage (with compulsory voting), but it is not equal: 
more than a third of the electors, those of some property 
and position, have two and even three votes each, while 
ths working men have only one vote each, although this 
inequality is neutralized to a slight extent by propor- 
tional representation of minorities. 

The most distinctive feature of Belgian Socialism is 
Co-operation, which came down from the middle ages, 
and is not only commercial but political in its organiza- 
tion and activities. Some co-operators belong to the 
Clerical Party (Roman Catholic), and pledge themselves 
to the defense of "property, religion and the family." 
But most of the co-operators are members of the Maison 
an Peuple (House of the People), a branch of the Social- 
ist-Co-operative organization, which started in a modest 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 293 

way in 1879, an< ^ * s now established in all the centres of 
industry throughout the country. From the profits of 
the Co-operative establishments a certain deduction is 
annually made for propaganda purposes. In 1906 these 
societies numbered 238, with sales amounting to $7,600,- 
000; and over 100,000 peasants are members of the rival 
Clerical co-operative societies. 

The Belgian Trade Unions are the successors of the 
trade benefit societies, which in turn were the successors 
of the medieval guilds, when the latter were abolished in 
1795. Most of the Trade Unions belong to the Labor 
Socialist Party. In 1906 there were nearly 150,000 or- 
ganized workers ; and there is also in addition a Catholic 
Trade Union organization, numbering 17,000, affiliated 
with the Catholic International Workingmen's Associa- 
tion. The City of Ghent gives to each unemployed man 
one dollar for every dollar given to him by his Trade 
Union. There are throughout the country several thou- 
sand mutual societies which insure the workers against 
accident, sickness, old age and death. 

In 1885 a Socialist Workingmen's Party was organized 
under the name of the Parti ouvrier beige. There was 
also a branch of the American Knights of Labor formed. 
In 1893 the Labor Party, aided by the Brussels Maison 
du Peuple, inaugurated a "universal strike" in favor of 
universal and equal suffrage ; in a lktle over a week the 
government yielded certain concessions, but did not grant 
equal suffrage; and in 1902 there was another universal 
strike to force the government to grant equal suffrage, 
but it was not successful. 

In 1906, out of no Senators, the Socialists elected 
six; and in the Chamber of Deputies, out of 116 mem- 
bers, the Socialists elected 35, there also being elected 



294 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

two "Christian Democrats ;" in 1908 the Socialists 
elected 36 members of the Chamber of Deputies. Of 
recent years the status of the party has been stationary, 
and it would seem as if the possibilities of any further 
material development, at least in voting and parliamen- 
tary strength, have been arrested under the unfair con- 
ditions of the ballot. There is another reason for the 
evident arresting of the growth of Socialism in Belgium : 
The party has from the first been identified with the ex- 
treme wing; the strongest section of the International 
was among the Belgians ; and the movement naturally 
runs counter to the national religious sentiments of the 
people. This fact has been utilized by the Catholic 
Church, and it has organized a rival social-reform move- 
ment which appeals to a considerable section of the 
working people. 

Socialism in Holland. 

In the former Republic of the Netherlands, wealth is 
very unequally divided; wages are low, and the taxes 
fall heavily upon the working classes. A branch of the 
"International" was established in Holland in 1869, and 
ever since then Dutch Socialism has been inclined to 
Anarchism, although within recent years the development 
of Marxian principles has been marked. In 1878 there 
was a revival of Socialism succeeding the collapse of the 
"International." But it was an ex-Protestant minister, 
F. D. Nieuwenhuis, who established Modern Socialism 
in Holland. Pastor Nieuwenhuis left the Church be- 
cause he became convinced that it was on the side of the 
rich against the poor, and he founded the Social Demo- 
cratic Union in 1884. Three years later Nieuwenhuis 
was sent to prison "for political reasons," and the next 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 295 

year he was elected to Parliament — the first Socialist to 
have a seat in that body. This ex-reverend Socialist 
finally became too radical for the other comrades, and in 
course of time he lost his influence. The division over 
Anarchism grew very sharp. In 1889 the Social Demo- 
cratic League was founded, on Marxian lines. Refer- 
ring to the "harmonious" existence of Anarchists among 
the Socialists in Holland, Rae, in Contemporary Social- 
ism, says that, "according to the reports of the American 
consuls, nobody in the country thinks any harm of 
either." But Rae also says : "In Holland, of all coun- 
tries, the revolutionary element continues [in 1908] the 
dominant one in the Socialist Party, and in 1894 it was 
not, as elsewhere, the revolutionists, but it was the par- 
liamentarians, who were expelled from the old Social 
Democratic Union." In 1894 the present Social Demo- 
cratic Party was organized on German Marxian princi- 
ples, by twelve men, who were given the name of "the 
twelve Apostles." In 1901 there was a split among the 
Liberals on the suffrage question, the radical wing of the 
party demanding universal suffrage on the "one man one 
vote" basis. In the election that year, of the 100 mem- 
bers of the Lower Chamber of the "States General," 
seven Socialists were elected. There were also elected 1 1 
Liberal Democrats, their programme being universal suf- 
frage, curtailment of the privileges of the rich and the 
extension of those of the working people, and a more 
equitable division of wealth. The artist and intellectual 
classes of Holland have given, as Kirkup expresses it, a 
"sympathetic reception" to the Socialist movement, but 
Trade Unionism in Holland has suffered from its identi- 
fication with Anarchism. In 1905 there was formed a 
national federation of Trade Unions, to work in harmony 



296 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

with the newly-organized Social Democratic Party. Un- 
til a recent period Holland w&s almost entirely given to 
agriculture, but there has been a development of manu- 
facturing, and with it there has been a growth of Trade 
Unionism, and also of Co-operation, on the Belgian sys- 
tem. In 1905 the Socialists polled 65,743 votes, as 
against 38,279 in 1901 ; but they only elected the same 
number of Socialist members of the "States General" — 
seven. For years there was a bitter struggle between 
the Marxists and Revisionists (Opportunists), and at a 
special Congress held in February, 1909, the latter school 
won a signal victory. At the election later the Socialist 
vote was increased. The Marxists (or Tribunists) 
disgruntled at their treatment by the Revisionists, ran 
candidates of their own, but they polled only a few votes. 

In Switzerland. 

The "playground of Europe'' and "the model Repub- 
lic of the world," affords a brilliant vindication of the 
principles of industrial and political democracy, and at 
the same time is a practical argument against Revolu- 
tionary Socialism. The Swiss are probably the most 
happily-conditioned people in the world, there being but 
few very wealthy people and but few very poor among 
them. There have been more blood-red revolutionary 
Socialist harangues delivered in Switzerland than in any 
other country in the world, but they have nearly all been 
delivered by aliens — exiles from their own lands, who 
have sometimes abused the hospitality of free little 
Switzerland. Rae, in Contemporary Socialism, says : 
"The condition of Switzerland shows us clearly enough 
that democracy under a regime of freedom lends no ear 
to Socialism, but sets its face in entirely different direc- 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 297 

tions." It is very significant that Socialist writers and 
speakers seldom refer to Switzerland; and the reason is 
obvious. The Jesuit joint-authors, Fathers Cathrein and 
Gettelmann (Socialism) say: 

With regard to Switzerland we may repeat what we have 
written over twenty years ago. Despite the hospitality ac- 
corded to foreign Socialists, and despite the greatest free- 
dom of expansion, indigenous Socialism has never come to 
be of any importance. In 1879, the Socialist ranks numbered 
up to 15,000; at present the whole party as such amounts 
at most to 6,000 members. The Griitliverein, an association 
closely allied to Socialism, consisting exclusively of native 
Swiss, has a membership of 16,000. At the elections for the 
National Council, 1902, the Socialists returned seven candi- 
dates. The total of Socialist votes is estimated at 63,000, 
but many of them were polled by working men who were 
not Socialists. The reasons for the slow development of 
Swiss Socialism are enumerated by G. Adler as being "first, 
the obstacles in the way of propagandism owing to the want 
of industrial concentration; secondly, the steadiness of the 
country's political and social development; finally, the sober 
and practical character of the nation, which shows great re- 
semblance to the sound and healthy English type." 

England and Switzerland afford, therefore, very instruc- 
tive object lessons. They prove to evidence that wherever 
Socialism is untrammelled by restrictions, and must take 
part in practical social reforms, its revolutionary edge is 
soon blunted. 

Since 1887 the Swiss Workingmen's Federation [of 
Trade Unions] have elected a "Workman's Secretary/' 
who becomes thereby practically a member of the Federal 
Cabinet, and is paid a salary by the government. It is 
believed that this is the only instance of this sort of State 
recognition of organized Labor, although in 1910 the 
British Government took a partial step in this direction. 



298 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Another institution peculiar to Switzerland is the volun- 
tary societies for public utilities — charitable, educational, 
sanitary, etc. Co-operation is considerably developed, 
there being about 4,400 societies in 1903. Although 
Trade Unions have grown of late years, it is said they 
only include 12 per cent, of the workingmen. The 
different classes of the citizens, as regards ownership in 
this world's goods, mix freely, and take part in the many 
economic and social institutions of the country, and this, 
with the comparative absence of great wealth and great 
poverty, prevents the development of a "class-conscious" 
feeling among the working people as in most other coun- 
tries. The Grutliverein is the oldest Labor organiza- 
tion, it dating from 1838; and it is connected with the 
Socialist Party. Hunter's Socialists at Work practi- 
cally concedes that the Socialism of this organization is 
of a mild variety — or at any rate is of the Fabian type: 
"... As most of its leaders were Liberals, the re- 
sult has been similar to that in England; the develop- 
ment of a distinctly Socialist party has been compara- 
tively slow." In the opinion of the same writer the 
practical effect of the "referendum" (which is in opera- 
tion in Switzerland) is "that the peasant class especially 
is inclined to be conservative and impatient of politics, 
and the politician tends to become Opportunist." Still, 
if Socialists at Work is well-informed, the millennium 
does not exist even in Switzerland. It asserts: "The 
electoral system is open to much fraud, which is unscru- 
pulously practiced by the capitalist parties to keep the 
workers from representation in the National Council. 
At the last election the Socialists assembled 70,000 votes, 
by which they claim to have woji twenty-five seats, but 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 2gg 

they were only allowed six. Recent inquiries have been 
made into the extent of exploitation of child labor, with 
the appalling revelation that 53 per cent, of the children 
attending school are also employed in laborious daily 
work. . . . Capitalism has become intense, and with 
it an almost savage system of oppression has been insti- 
tuted by the government." The same work says that 
Switzerland has become notorious for the frequency with 
which the soldiery is used against striking workmen. 

[This statement leads to the reflection that in the mat- 
ter of the use of the strong arm of the State against 
strikers, a Republic is inclined to be more drastic — 
quicker, sterner, and to use repressive measures more 
frequently — than is a constitutional Monarchy. For in- 
stance: armed force is used much more frequently, and 
much more relentlessly, in the United States and France 
against lawless strikers than is the case in England. In 
connection with this phase of the whole question, it is in- 
teresting to note that while theoretically all Modern So- 
cialists are Republicans, yet they are no more favorable 
to a Republican form of government under the existing 
"capitalistic system" than they are to a Monarchical sys- 
tem; that is why so many even of the so-called Revolu- 
tionary Socialists of England refrain from denouncing 
the British Royal family. It is a fact that British Social- 
ists frequently declared that King Edward was more of 
a true Democrat than — say ex- President Roosevelt!] 

While most of the Socialism in Switzerland has been 
taken there by foreign agitators and refugees, there is 
still a genuine, native Swiss Socialism. In 1873 a Peo- 
ple's Association was formed, and also a Workers' Fed- 
eration ; and they both, in 1887, adopted the programme 



30o WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

of Marxian Socialism. In 1884 there was a Social Demo- 
cratic Party formed, but it collapsed; the present Social 
Democratic Party (Marxian) was formed in li 



In Denmark. 

The peculiarity of the Socialism of Denmark is the 
strong hold it has on the peasantry; and yet Denmark 
is a country of small peasant proprietors — a condition 
which it is almost axiomatic to say is opposed to the de- 
velopment of Socialism. Seven-eighths of the whole of 
Denmark is held by peasant proprietors; but this fact 
is not an unmixed blessing, as a large number of the 
proprietors are unable to extract a living out of their 
holdings, but they will not part with their land ; so that, 
as Rae describes it, there arises a kind of "proprietor- 
proletariat," and no doubt this is one of the leading 
causes why Socialism is so attractive to the peasants. As 
to the condition in the cities and towns, a remarkable 
official report was made to the British Foreign Office in 
1870. This report states that in 1867 one out of every 
four of the inhabitants of Copenhagen was in receipt of 
parochial relief. The report goes on to say: "No fact 
in my report is more certain than that the Dane has yet 
to learn the meaning of the word work; of entireness 
and thoroughness he has seldom any adequate notion. 
This is why the Swedish artisan can so often take the 
bread from his mouth/' But the British official (Mr. 
Strachey) who makes this discouraging report of the 
Danish artisan, has a far different opinion of the Danish 
peasant. He declares him to be — since he has been 
freed from the yoke of the Danish landlord, who was the 
scourge of the country — "the freest, the most politically 
wise, the best educated of European yeomen." Social- 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 301 

ism in Denmark dates from 1871 ; and in 1872 a branch 
of the "International" was formed. It is a remarkable 
fact that in this overwhelmingly Protestant country the 
International was introduced by two Roman Catholics. 
They appear to have been a pair of precious rascals, and 
it is said that they decamped to America carrying with 
them the funds of the Socialist organization. The Dan- 
ish "International" then "degenerated" into a simple 
Trade Union." In 1871 there was started at Copenhagen 
the Social Democrat, and it is flourishing to this day, it 
having a circulation of between 50,000 and 60,000. The 
present Socialist organization, the Social Democratic 
Union, was formed in 1878; it is in close alliance with 
the German Social Democracy, and it is constitutional in 
its methods. A peculiarity of it is that it embraces two 
organizations — one political, and the other economic, the 
latter being the Socialist Trade Unions. Women take 
an active part in the Socialist propaganda in Denmark. 
Ensor {Modern Socialism) says that Denmark "leads the 
Continent in the practical realization of Socialist ideas;" 
and in the opinion of Robert Hunter, "the Danish Party 
stands out as one of the sturdiest and best-united sec- 
tions of the International movement." Trade guilds were 
abolished in 1857. In 1898 there was established a na- 
tional system of Trade Unions similar to the American 
Federation of Labor. There is a most excellent system 
of pensioning the worthy poor ; and Co-operation is ex- 
tensive, it being on the English Rochdale plan. In 1887 
the Socialists polled 8,408 votes; in 1898 they polled 
25,019; and in 1901 they polled 41,955. In 1889 they, 
elected one deputy to the Folkething (Parliament), out 
of a total membership of 114; in 1903 they elected 16 
deputies ; in 1906 they elected 24 to the Folkething, and 



302 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

four to the Landsting (the Senate), and polled 76,012 
votes; and they also elected 450 Councillors in the dif- 
ferent cities and towns, and 400 in the rural communi- 
ties. Combined with the Radicals, the Socialists now 
have the majority in Danish local governments. Of all 
European countries, Denmark is the most advanced in 
assistance by the State in the sale and export of farm 
products. 

In Norway. 

In Norway the Socialists and the Labor Party are 
virtually one; and this feature is also characteristic of 
the other Scandinavian countries, Sweden and Denmark. 
The movement in the three countries, in fact, has a 
strong bond of sympathy uniting them, and they fre- 
quently hold joint conferences. Socialism was intro- 
duced into Norway from Denmark in 1873, and a branch 
of the International was established; and there was a 
movement towards Socialism during the agitation for a 
Republic in 1883. But Socialism did not show any vital- 
ity in Norway until 1885 ; two years afterwards the Labor 
Party was formed, and in 1889 it declared itself for So- 
cialism. In 1897 the Socialist-Labor Party cast only 
947 votes; in 1900 it cast 7,440 votes; in 1903 it cast 
24,770, and elected four members to the Storthing (Par- 
liament), including the only Roman Catholic member of 
that body; in 1906 the Socialists polled 45,000 votes and 
elected 10 members of the Storthing; in 1901 they 
elected 31 municipal councillors; in 1904 they elected 
74; and in 1906 they elected 330, a number of them be- 
ing women, who have a qualified right to vote, the suffrage 
for men being practically universal. It is in its munici- 
pal activities that Norwegian Socialism has been mostly 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 303 

conspicuous. The Socialists were much disappointed at 
the result of the plebescite on the question of whether 
their country, on its secession from Sweden, should be a 
Republic or a Monarchy. The result was : for a Repub- 
lic, 69,264; for a Monarchy, 259,563. Hunter's Social- 
ists at Work narrates this incident : "The subsequent 
action of the Socialists in voting to welcome King 
Haakon to Norway was severely criticised throughout 
the world movement, and to their explanation that it 
would have been unconstitutional to have voted other- 
wise after the referendum, the German 'Vorwarts' re- 
torted, 'Since when have Socialists been bound by con- 
stitutions?' Eventually it was given as an excuse by 
the leading Socialist review that the party was very 
young, and that it must be remembered it had not been 
built upon an economic foundation as in other countries. " 

In Sweden. 

The main endeavor of the Swedish Socialists so far 
has been to secure unfettered universal suffrage, and 
while they have not been wholly successful, they have 
been able to obtain a considerable extension of the fran- 
chise within recent years. The International form of 
Socialism was introduced into Sweden from Denmark, 
but it did not thrive, and it drifted into Trade Unionism, 
which assumed an organized form in 1880. In 1885 the 
Trade Unions declared for Socialism; in 1898 a national 
organization of the Trade Unions was formed, and in 
1899 this organization formally allied itself with the 
Social Democratic Party. In 1891 there was a contest 
between the Anarchists and the Marxians in the party, 
and the Marxians won. In 1905 a Congress of the 
Swedish Socialists (the Norwegian Socialists being rep- 



304 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

resented) declared for the unqualified right of the Nor- 
wegian people to manage their own national affairs, and 
this declaration had a great effect in bringing about a 
peaceable arrangement between the two countries for 
separation. 

The "general strike" is a characteristic weapon in the 
hands of the Swedish Labor-Socialists. During August 
and September of 1909 there was the most extensive 
demonstration of this character which has occurred in 
the industrial history of the country. It was precipi- 
tated by a "lock-out" on a large scale, that being a not 
infrequent expedient on the part of Swedish employers 
when they wish to bring their workmen to terms. At 
the beginning of August, 80,000 employees were locked 
out. The National organization of the Trade Unions 
took up the matter, and it was decided to call a "general 
strike" as a protest and to cause such a "tie-up" in the 
country's industrial and commercial affairs as to force 
employers to abandon "lock-outs" as a policy. The 
"general strike" took effect August 4th. Out of half a 
million industrial workers in Sweden, about half belong 
to Trade Unions; and most of the latter obeyed the 
order to strike, a notable exception, however, being the 
railroad men ; and many thousands of unorganized work- 
ers also joined the strikers. On September 6th the La- 
bor Federation formally "called off" the strike, on the 
promise of the National Government to make as satis- 
factory a settlement as possible ; but the strike was prac- 
tically a failure. A noticeable feature of the struggle 
w r as the complete absence of violence. Since 1900 the 
Trade Unionists have increased from 46,000 to 144,000 
in 1908. In 1896 the Socialists elected one member to 
the Diet (Parliament) out of a total membership of 230; 



CONTINENTAL SOCIALISM 305 

in 1905 they elected 15 members, and cast 30,000 votes; 
and in 1908 they elected 33 members. The fact that 
there are thousands more of paying members to the 
Socialist organization than cast Socialist votes, shows 
the disadvantage under which the Socialists labor in re- 
gard to the franchise. The enrolled Socialist vote fell 
from 112,693 in 1909 to 60,813 in 1910. At the first 
election under Universal Suffrage, held in September, 
191 1, there was a notable increase in the Socialist 
strength in the Second Chamber of Parliament. 

Spain and Portugal. 

Spain had no Socialist, no representative of the prole- 
tariat, in its National Legislature until 1910, when 
Madrid sent one ; but it has for some years back elected 
a number of Socialist town councillors. Socialism ap- 
peared in Spain in 1868, and until 1888 was wholly of 
the Anarchistic character. In 1873 the "International'' 
had 674 branches and 300,000 members in Spain. The 
method of progaganda by the Socialists was extraordi- 
nary : they usually held their meetings in the churches — 
God, religion, the priests and the rich being denounced 
from the pulpits. Rae observes that the revolutionary 
tradition of Spain has always favored communal auton- 
omy, "but in a country like Spain, where communal prop- 
erty exists already to a large extent, the idea of making 
all other property communal property lies ever at hand 
as a ready resource of reformers." Since 1882 there 
has been a Democratic Labor Party, established on 
Marxian lines, but its membership has never been great. 
In Spain the tendency of Socialism is toward extreme 
Anarchism. But this tendency ought in fairness to be 
dissociated from the recognized doctrines of Modern 



306 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Socialism ; it is rather to be considered as a violent pro- 
test on the part of Republican Atheists (who, however, 
are also Socialists) against the Monarchy and the tyran- 
nical system of government. These were the under- 
lying reasons for the bomb outrage against the young 
King and his English bride as they were returning to 
the royal palace after "the wedding ceremony, and for 
the other outbreaks, particularly at Barcelona. The 
court-martial and execution of Prof. Francisco Ferrer 
in October, 1909, has fanned the flame of fierce discon- 
tent, and the present outlook in Spain is very black. 

Socialism proper has never been anything but an ab- 
stract idea in Portugal, although late reports are to the 
effect that there is a beginning to the movement. Ever 
since 1872 there has been an Anarchistic sentiment, and j 
there have been Anarchistic organizations of a limited 
membership and influence. But the Anarchism of Por- 
tugal has been mostly of the philosophical kind — that is, 
while its adherents advocated the abolition of all organ- 
ized government, they repudiated physical force as a 
means of attainment. While the Socialists took part in 
the establishment of the Republic in 1910, the revolution 
really had nothing to do with Socialism. 

"There is the beginning of a Socialist movement in 
Greece." Such was an official "International" report in 
1909. Its growth has been phenomenal, for in Septem- 
ber, 1910, the Socialists elected 10 members to the new 
National Assembly. 

Turkey seems to be the only European country — if it 
can be so designated — which remains unaffected by the 
world-sweep of Socialism ; and yet, even in Turkey, the 
seed has been sown. 



CHAPTER XII 

THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL" 

J 

In America there is a general failure to appreciate not 
only the immanence of Socialism as an active and poten- 
tial force in this country, but also that it is a stupendous 
fact as an International movement. Taking each of the 
countries as a unit, Socialism as an organized force is far 
and away more thorough, more disciplined, more zealous, 
more devoted to its objects and the membership more 
willing to work in season and out of season and to make 
personal sacrifices for the attainment of those objects, 
than is the case with any other society, secular, religious, 
or social, with possibly one exception, — the Catholic 
Church — and that exception possibly would not apply to 
the general membership. So, as an International social- 
political movement, Socialism stands unique : in perfec- 
tion of detail of organization, in world-wide scope, in 
enthusiasm, and in unity of purpose, there is nothing to 
compare with Socialism excepting its great opponent, the 
Catholic Church. 

The old "International," which broke up largely be- 
cause of the conflict between Marx and Bakounin, be- 
tween Socialism proper and Anarchism, has been suc- 
ceeded by the immeasurably more powerful and cosmo- 
politan Socialist Congress. This new organization dates 
from July, 1889, when two rival Socialist and Working- 

307 



308 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

men's Congresses were held at Paris, one being strictly 
Marxian and the other "Possibilist," or "Fabian Oppor- 
tunist/' the latter including Trade Unionists. Since 1891 
the two distinctive schools have met together in one In- 
ternational Congress, practically all phases of the cult 
being represented with the exception of Anarchists, 
Trade Unionists and Co-operators being also included — 
indeed, the new "International" is as much Trade Union 
as Socialist in its derivation and purpose. This fact is 
important, as it emphasizes the difference between the old 
and the new spirit of Socialism. Formerly, Trade 
Unionists and Co-operators, as such, were looked upon 
coldly and sometimes were actively opposed by genuine 
Socialists. Under a standing order the call for the Con- 
gress includes all "genuine trade or labor organizations," 
even "though taking no militant part in politics." At the 
last Congress this question was threshed out, the old-line 
British Marxists objecting to representation from the 
English Laborites ; but the claims of the latter were sup- 
ported by the leaders of the German Social Democracy, 
and they carried the day overwhelmingly. The practical 
result of this policy has been to give momentum to the 
tendency on the part of Trade Unionists and Co-oper- 
ators throughout the world to embrace the special tenets 
of Socialism. The eighth and last Congress was held 
at Copenhagen, Denmark, in September, 1910, and was 
attended by 887 representatives from 33 nations, the 
British Section forming the largest of the national 
groups. Unemployment and Militarism formed the chief 
topics of discussion. Resolutions in favor of co-opera- 
tion between Socialists and Trade Unionists were unani- 
mously adopted. As compared with previous Interna- 
tional gatherings of Socialists, the Copenhagen Congress 



THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL" 309 

was conspicuously conservative — so much so that it has 
been criticised by members of the old-line Revolutionary 
Marxian school. It is a significant fact that in a number 
of respects the British delegates were more radical than 
were the German representatives. Three points were 
conspicuously brought out at this, the largest and most 
representative body of the proletariat of the world ever 
assembled: (1) the ever-increasing strength of the So- 
cialist movement in all countries; (2) its growing soli- 
darity; (3) its tendency to substitute practical Oppor- 
tunism for idealistic Revolutionary "Scientific" Marxian 
Socialism. 

The International Socialist Bureau was instituted in 
1900 as the permanent Executive Council of the Inter- 
national Congress, and consists of two representatives 
from each national delegation to the Congress, together 
with one representative from the Socialist and Labor 
Parliamentary Parties of each nation. The Chairman is 
the brilliant Belgian Socialist, Emil Vandervelde. The 
Bureau meets annually at Brussels. 

In connection with the Congress and the Bureau there 
are National Committees in each country. 

As a development of the Congress there is also an 
European Socialist and Labor Inter-Parliamentary Com- 
mittee. Its purpose is to keep the different national So- 
cialist and Labor Parliamentary groups in touch with 
each other, with the especial object of taking joint action 
in the event of threatened war between the nations. It 
is understood that the Inter- Parliamentary groups of 
Great Britain, France and Germany exchanged views 
during the "war talk" over Morocco in the summer of 
191 1. It is well-known that the German Social Democ- 
racy — which is the largest political "group" in the 



316 



WHAT IS SOCIALISM > 



Fatherland — is bitterly opposed to the militarism and bel- 
ligerency of the Kaiser ; and it is not at all unlikely that 
the Imperial knowledge of this fact had something to do 
with the modification of the demands of "the War 
Lord." In the official year-book of the English Labor- 
Socialists this organization is referred to as possibly pos- 
sessing "the germ of the future Parliament of the United 
States of Europe." In 1910, 14 nations were represented 
on the Inter-Parliamentary Committee. 

Numerical Strength of Socialism. 

The official year-book of the Socialist-Labor Party of 
Great Britain for 191 1 gives the following as the repre- 
sentation of the Socialists and "Laborites" committed to 
Socialism in the different Parliaments of the world by 
the latest returns : 





No. of Soc. 


Total 


Percentage 


Socialist 


Country- 


and Labor 


Members in 


of Soc. and 


and Labor 




Members. 


Parliament. 


Lab. Members. 


Votes. 


Austria 


88 


5i6 


17.06 


1,041,948 


Finland 


86 


200 


43. 


3i6,9SX 


France 


7 6 


595 


13.01 


1,106,047 


Germany 


53* 


397 


12.61 


3,258,968 


Italy 


42 


508 


8.26 


338,885 


Australia 


4i 


75 


54-8 


678,012 


Great Britain 4ot 


670 


5-97 


529,193 


Belgium 


35 


166 


21.08 


483,241 


Sweden 


36 


165 


21.81 


75,000 



* Eleven seats won since the General Election, 1907. 
t General Election, January, 19 10. Fewer candidates were run 
at the last election, December, 1910, and the poll was consequently 
reduced, though the average vote was higher and the representa-* 
tion increased from 40 to 42. 



THE NEW "INTERNATIONAL" 



3" 



No. of Soc. 


Total 


Percentage 


Country and Labor 


Members in 


of Soc. and 


Members. 


Parliament. 


Lab. Members. 


Denmark 


24 


114 


21. 


Russia 


17 


442 


3.82 


Norway- 


11 


123 


8.94 


Luxemburg 


10 


48 


20.83 


Greece 


10 


358 


2.8 


Holland 


7 


100 


7.0 


Switzerland 


7 


170 


4. 11 


Turkey 


6 


196 


3.06 


Chili 


6 


107 


5.6 


Canada 


1 


213 


0.47 


Servia 


1 


160 


0.62 


Argentine 


1 


120 


0.73 


Spain 


1 


406 


0.24 


United States 


1* 


291 


0.2 



Socialist 
and Labor 
Votes. 
98,721 



90,000 



82,494 
100,000 

18,000 

3,056 

10,000 

40,791 

800,000 



* One in Congress and 30 in the State Legislatures, elected in 
1910. 

The two following tables are taken from The Socialist 
Animal (London), for 1911: 



The strength of Socialist parties on Municipal and Communal 
Councils is as follows (so far as known) : 



No. of 
Socialist 
Country Councillors. 

Austria 2,896 

Belgium 850 

Bulgaria ? 

Denmark 1,000 

England 1,126 

Finland 351 

France ....,.,....,... 3,800 



No. of 
Socialist 
Country Councillors. 

Germany 7,729 

Italy 3,139 

Norway 873 

Servia 22 

Spain 150 

Sweden ..,.., 125 



312 



WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 



The Socialist Press of various countries consists of the fol- 
lowing organs; 

Periodi- 
Country. Papers for cals and 

No. of No. of Other Women's the Comic Re- 
Dailies. Weeklies. Papers. Papers. Youth Papers, views. 



Australia 


— 


2 


— 


— 


— 


— 


I 


Austria 


5 


30 


16 


2 


2 


2 


5 


(Inclu. Bohemia) 


1 












Belgium 


6 


9 


ii 


— 


I 


— 


— 


Bulgaria 


— 


i 


3 


— 


— 


— 


i 


Canada 


— 


2 


I 





— 


— 


— 


Denmark 


35 


I 


— 


— 


— 


I 


i 


England 


— 


II 


4 


— 


I 


— 


2 


Finland 


4 


I 


ii 


I 


I 


I 


2 


France 


4 


41 


3 


— 


— 


— 


I 


Germany 


76 


4 


6 


I 


I 


I 


2 


Greece 


— 


i 


— 


— 


— 


— 


I 


Holland 


i 


14 


— 


I 


I 


I 


2 


Hungary 


i 


7 


4 


— 


— 


— - 


I 


Italy 


2 


95 


5 


— 


— 


I 


I 


Luxemburg 


— 


i 


— 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Norway 


8 


3 


12 


I 


I 


— 


I 


Poland 


2 


3 (a 


number 


of secret publications) 


2 


Portugal 


— 


i 












Rqumania 


— 


i 


— . 


— 


— 


— 


I 


Russia 


— 


3 (a 


number 


' of secret publications) 


— 


Servia 


— 


i 


2 


— 


— 


— 


I 


Spain 


I 


2 


5 


— 


— 


— 


— 


Sweden 


8 


2 


4 


I 


— 


— 


I 


Switzerland 


I 6 


4 


7 


— 


— 


— 


— 


U. S. A. 


8 


39 


8 


I 


2 


— 


4 



(Since the above table was compiled several new papers de- 
voted to Socialism have started in the United States.) 



From the same publication is taken the following table 
of the number of organized workers in the different coun- 
tries, according to the latest data available: 



THE NEW "IN 


Austria (1909)* . .. 


. . 484,693 


Australia and New 


Zealand (1908) . . 


• • 239,293 


Belgium (1908) . .. 


. . 147,058 


Bosnia (1910) 


4,470 


Bulgaria (1908) .. 


• • 12,933 


Croatia (1908) 


4,520 


Denmark (1909) . . 


. . 120,195 


England (1909) .. . 


. . 2,347,461 


Finland (1908) 


24,009 


France (1908) 


• • 715,576 


Germany (i909)t .. 


. .'2,447,578 



INTERNATIONAL" 



313 



Holland (1909) 145,000 

Hungary (1909) 85,266 

Italy (1909) 598,360 

Norway (1909) 43,199 

Servia (1909) 4,800 

Spain ( 1909) 40,984 

Sweden (1909) 219,000 

Switzerland (1908) .. 113,800 

U. S. A. (1908) 1,588,000 



About 9,750,000 



* Including nearly 70,000 Czech "Separatists." 
f Including 270,751 Christians (Catholics), 108,028 Hirsch- 
Duncker (Liberal), and 236,132 Independent and Local. 



CHAPTER XIII 

CONCLUSION: A CRITICISM 

The conclusion of the whole matter is that Socialism, 
in its "ultimate aim," is only a dream. To millions of 
weary toilers it is as alluring as 

"One of those passing rainbow dreams" ; 

but to others it is a spectre of the night — "black, fearful, 
comfortless and horrible." The convinced Socialist may 
concede, for the sake of argument, perhaps, that the ulti- 
mate goal of his creed is a dream ; still he pleads that the 
dream of to-day is the fact of to-morrow. But dreams 
are unsubstantial things, and a wise man has said: 
"Ground not upon dreams, you know they are ever con- 
trary !" 

There has never existed a true Socialist State, a Col- 
lective Commonwealth; and, judging the future by the 
past, and giving due consideration to natural law and to 
human nature, it is safe to say that there never will be 
one. This does not mean that there will not be attempts 
made to bring about the thing called Socialism, for 
"Utopia" still exists in men's imagination. Neither does 
it mean that many of the "immediate demands" of So- 
cialism are not desirable as well as practicable. 

Socialism — that is Collectivism — is bound to prove its 

314 



CONCLUSION: A CRITICISM 315 

case before any sane-minded nation will make the leap 
in the dark, although it is quite possible that some coun- 
tries, through weak, demagogic and foolish politicians, 
may be drawn perilously near the brink of the precipice. 
Most Socialists profess to believe in Darwinism; but 
the Socialist creed is absolutely opposed to the first prin- 
ciples of Darwin, unless it be held that the fate of the 
human race is death from dry rot — for that would be the 
inevitable result of a persistence in Collectivism. The 
Darwinian law of "the survival of the fittest" may be a 
cruel one, like the law of death itself, but all the resolu- 
tions of the "International" to the end of time will not 
affect that law one tittle. It is a law of nature that life 
is a continual struggle from birth to death; without 
struggle and restless movement there can be no healthy 
and vigorous life; but Socialism means stagnation, and 
tinder natural law there can be only one result — paralysis 
and death ! Socialists appeal to the tribal relations and 
the village communities as historical proofs of the natu- 
ral status of the theory of Collectivism ; but as pointed out 
by F. W. Headley in Darwinism and Modern Socialism, 
the old form of tribal and village Socialism did not come 
in conflict with Darwinian principles : it did not check 
the elimination of the unfit; while "the new Socialism 
aims at putting a stop to the struggle for existence alto- 
gether. There is to be, if not a luxurious, yet a soft en- 
vironment for all." If monopoly has stifled individual 
initiative and enterprise, the remedy is not Industrial Col- 
lectivism, but such an adjustment and regulation of af- 
fairs as will restore true competition and Individualism, 
by establishing a relative equality of opportunity. In- 
dustrial Collectivism would be more destructive to indi- 
vidual vigor and manly independence and human happi- 



316 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

ness than is the modern monster Monopoly. Again 
quoting the author of Darivinism and Modern Socialism: 



The history of the human race has been the history of 
effort, of struggle against difficulties, hardships, and enemies. 
Socialism, which has been well called the philosophy of fail- 
ure, means submission to difficulties. It preaches the help- 
lessness of the individual and the omnipotence of the State. 
The citizens are to be, each of them, so much concrete weak- 
ness and helplessness, but somehow the State, though com- 
posed of such men and women, is to be, beyond all experi- 
ence of governments, strenuous and capable. Such a system 
has only to be tried in its complete form and it must prove at 
once a disastrous failure. 



The progress of Society has been gradual, and the 
present system has unknown ages back of it; but imper- 
fect as it is, there is no warrant for the assumption that 
its improvement will, in the main, be along any other 
lines than those which have gone before; nevertheless, 
there is ground for the confident hope and expectation 
that these lines will be straighter and smoother than for- 
merly, and that the rate and extent and scope of the im- 
provements will continually increase. It is proposed by 
Socialists to substitute for the present long-tested system 
one that is utterly untried in its fulness of conception, 
and the partial experiments of which have all finally 
proven failures, in all ages and under all conditions. In 
cases where there has been even approximate temporary 
success in these partial experiments, they have been 
based on slavery of the body or of the mind — sometimes 
both — the Socialism of Classic Athens representing the 
former and that of Utopia the other. 

Socialism, in its full concept — as dreamed of by its dev- 



CONCLUSION: A CRITICISM 317 

otees — can never be a success until human nature has 
been abolished. 

Socialists point to the ever-widening sphere of State 
activities as a demonstration of the immanence and prac- 
ticability of Collectivism. But they fail to recognize 
that to these activities there are limitations, both in na- 
ture and degree. Leaving out of consideration such 
matters as public schools, parks, baths, drainage, etc. 
(about which there is no controversy), the State or 
Municipality can only handle with advantage such under- 
takings as are simple and uniform in their operation and 
administration, and that are non-industrial. 

Furthermore, these undertakings are wholly or sub- 
stantially to be classed as natural monopolies, such as 
water, light, carrying the mails, transportation (railways, 
street cars), or general communication (telegraphs, tele- 
phones) ; and it is to be observed that even some of these, 
designated as natural monopolies, can be operated by 
private corporations at least as well as by the State, under 
certain conditions ; and indeed, there are conditions under 
which it would be very unwise for the State or for Muni- 
cipalities to undertake their operation. It should be 
particularly noted that most of the undertakings now 
operated by the State with a measurable degree of suc- 
cess and satisfaction, belong to a class of necessities or 
conveniences, or ethical or artistic wants of Society, 
which are quite apart from Industrialism; and it should 
be remembered that the argument for Socialism, as re- 
gards its economic side, is based entirely on changing the 
present private industrial system to Collectivism. 

Socialists also neglect to note that many of the enter- 
prises in which the State is active are entirely new, not 
only in form, but in conception and sphere of service. 



318 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

To a great extent State Socialism, so-called, is not the 
substitution of communal ownership for private owner- 
ship, but is the establishment and operation by the State 
for the common good of undertakings which had never 
existed before, many of these being on entirely new ideas 
of human endeavor, let alone of public activity; and none 
of these undertakings, it must again be pointed out, are 
of an industrial, productive nature, properly speaking. 

But directly the State or Municipality undertakes in- 
dustrial productive enterprises it steps outside the limita- 
tions of its competency. There is no experience to sus- 
tain the contention of Socialists that the State can suc- 
cessfully undertake manufacturing, commercial, or trad- 
ing enterprises, or even cultivate the land collectively 
with advantage. All the evidence points the other way. 
This is true even under the present system of society, 
where a failure in such an attempt is largely neutralized 
by the general elasticity of the conditions and the recuper- 
ative powers of the community. But under the opera- 
tions of the proposed Co-operative Commonwealth, there 
would be no such elasticity or recuperative power. The 
State machine would be deadly in its destruction of the 
very mainsprings of human activity and inspiration. Im- 
perfect as is the modern system of Industrialism, it obeys 
certain natural laws which operate successfully in the 
main in correcting mistakes ; but were Universal Indus- 
trialism undertaken by the State, the very vastness of 
the scheme and the minute and uncountable complicated 
parts of the mechanism of executive control and adminis- 
tration would inevitably cause the system to be unrespon- 
sive to corrective natural laws, and finally to break down. 

While the State is ever broadening and increasing its 
activities, yet it does not produce wealth; it simply 



CONCLUSION: A CRITICISM 319 

spends wealth created under the existing system of so- 
called Capitalism — of individual enterprise and compe- 
tition. It is true that Socialists have a list of enterprises 
which they label ''Socialism in the Making"- — in which, 
with triumphant exultation recent State or Municipal 
undertakings are pointed to as evidence of the practica- 
bility of Collectivism. It is to be observed that the great 
majority of these undertakings come under the category 
of public benevolences or "public utilities ;" and the 
former are admittedly permanently non-productive and 
are always drains upon the public treasury, while the 
latter are examples of State or Municipal Socialism, such 
as the public ownership and operation of railroads, water- 
works, street railroads, etc., which are, in their very na- 
ture, monopolies, and which frequently are run at a loss, 
and oftentimes not so efficiently as similar undertakings 
are by private corporations. And, by way of passing, it 
might be remarked that these State and Municipal activi- 
ties are repudiated by real Socialists as examples of true 
Collectivism. But very few of the enterprises referred 
to can be claimed as productive industries ; and such as 
may be claimed so to be, are of the simplest nature, and 
are all mere experiments, with all the precedents of his- 
tory against the presumption of permanent success. Of 
course, there may be occasional instances in which, under 
abnormal conditions, and particularly under the stress 
of a sudden unexpected national necessity or calamity, 
the State might with propriety and even advantage, en- 
gage temporarily in an industrial productive enterprise; 
but even then, experience has shown that the State is not 
a successful manager of a manufacturing enterprise. 
Occasionally the State has to avail itself of Martial Law, 
but the normal condition of every free community must 



320 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

be under ordinary Civil Law. Socialists can be chal- 
lenged to produce a single instance of real Industrial 
Collectivism applied to any complicated modern "social- 
ized" manufacturing enterprise which has stood the test 
of time. It is impossible to definitely set the limit to the 
State's activity, but in a general way it may be set down 
that the State should not invade the field of productive 
enterprise. This is the major field of human activities; 
all others are the minor. Notwithstanding the extending 
field of State and Municipal Socialism, it is safe to say 
that for all time most of the work of the world will con- 
tinue to be performed by individuals under private enter- 
prise; although it is quite reasonable to assume that the 
State will in the future — and in the near future — have 
more to say as to the relations between the worker and 
the Capitalist than it now has ; and, in addition, it is to 
be expected and hoped that the day is not far distant 
when these relations will be so changed and modified by 
voluntary and unofficial agreement as will make the lot 
of the toiler much more satisfactory than it is at present. 

When Socialists declaim against the alleged tyranny of 
the present so-called "Capitalistic" Governments, they 
forget that these very Governments allow them to preach 
Socialism and to organize to overthrow them ; so, also, 
when they boast of the increasing number of State and 
Municipal Socialist enterprises they lose sight of the fact 
that it is the private tax-payers — who get their money 
through the Capitalistic system — who make possible 
these examples of Socialism, such as they are. Under 
Socialism, the well-springs of National prosperity would 
dry up, and individual pauperism would become uni- 
versal. 

One of the greatest of England's Radicals — a man be- 



CONCLUSION: A CRITICISM 321 

loved of the common people because of his devotion to 
their interests — was Charles Bradlaugh. He was pre- 
eminently a Social Reformer, but he was no Socialist, as 
the term is now understood. He strenuously took the 
position, by voice and pen, that Socialism meant Na- 
tional and individual suicide. He pointed out the one 
great overwhelming objection to the system in saying: 

If Socialism could be realized, then it would be fatal to all 
progress by neutralizing and paralyzing individual effort, and 
here I say that civilization has only been in proportion to the 
energy of individuals. 

As civilization has revolted against the old "Manches- 
ter school" of extreme Individualism, so it will refuse to 
accept the other extreme, that of Collectivism; it will 
distinguish between Social Reform and Socialism. 

Modern Socialists are prone to ascribe to the State 
some mystical omniscience, omnipotence and moral per- 
fection. They ignore the fact that the State is but an 
instrument, that before the State, the individual was, and 
that the potentiality and beneficence of the State depend 
altogether upon the people composing it. 

It has been well said that Socialists are ultra-Pessi- 
mists as to the present, and ultra-Optimists as to the 
future. They are blind to the ever-multiplying evi- 
dences of amelioration all around them, and are fanatical 
enthusiasts over the prospects of a coming heaven upon 
earth founded upon the unsubstantial fabric of a dream. 
The success of Socialism pre-supposes that human nature 
will become angelic ; but when that time comes, there will 
be no necessity for Socialism or any other "ism," for 
mankind will then have left this earth and become inhab- 
itants of Paradise itself. 



322 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

To a certain class of men, the very indefiniteness of 
Socialism is an attraction — and some expositors claim 
that this vagueness is not only a matter of course, but is 
one of the strong attributes of the theory; but it is a 
stumbling block to the candid and thoughtful student. 

In its economic phase "the alpha and omega" of Social- 
ism is the communal ownership and operation of the 
means of production, distribution and exchange — or 
"capital;" but within recent years there has been an ap- 
preciation on the part of many of the leaders of the move- 
ment of the necessity of conceding that the individual 
must be allowed to privately own not only natural and 
manufactured products for his personal use and comfort, 
and that he must also be permitted to own certain 
"means of production;" for instance, some Socialists 
freely admit that a man should be allowed to own a jack- 
knife, and to use it as a means of production, and that a 
woman should be permitted to count a needle and even 
a sewing-machine among her personal property! The 
one Simon-pure Marxian Revolutionary Socialist who 
was elected to the British Parliament in the tidal- wave a 
few years ago was Victor Grayson. At a public meeting 
during his campaign a "heckler" asked him, "Do you be- 
lieve in private property?" and his answer was, "I would 
nationalize the means of production, but a man would 
keep his tooth-brush and tooth-pick!" The Socialists 
have been so hard pressed upon this phase of the ques- 
tion, that the necessity of "hedging" has been forced 
upon them; and the latter-day explanation is that "the 
means of production" to be owned by the State under 
Collectivism would be only those that are employed in 
"socialized" industries — that is, those which require the 
combined labor of a number of groups of workmen. 



CONCLUSION: A CRITICISM 323 

But, except in regard to the simplest things, every indus- 
trial product is the result of "socialized" labor, to a 
greater or less extent, in these days of the sub-division 
of labor. Reflection will clearly show that it is abso- 
lutely impossible to draw a line of distinction. 

There is equally the same difficulty in the attempt to 
define and limit what is called "Capital." Any man who 
possesses anything above his actual needs which another 
man wants and for which the latter is willing to give 
anything else (including his labor), is to that extent a 
"Capitalist." It is claimed that the establishment of the 
Collectivist Commonwealth would mark the extinction 
of Capitalism; but the probabilities are that it would be 
but the beginning of a new craze for private possessions, 
eventuating in the birth of a new race of capitalists, 
who would at first operate secretly and in a small way, 
but would in time openly defy the Commonwealth and 
branch out on a large scale. They would commence 
by saving and hoarding, and after a while they would 
have accumulated a large quantity of excess goods and 
money, — if the Commonwealth used money — which is 
a matter much in dispute among Socialists themselves. 
No law on earth could stop them from doing so, — the 
history of the Jews under cruel repressive laws demon- 
strates that — and no law on earth could prevent other 
men from exchanging their own accumulated goods or 
money, or even from working for a wage or return in 
"kind." Hence, there would inevitably be a return to 
Capitalism and a wage-earning class. 

In its very essence, Collectivism, in its full concep- 
tion, must be monopolistic: the State would, as a mat- 
ter of necessity, use all of its authority to prevent com- 
petition from private individuals; therefore, from purely 



324 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

economic reasons — apart from others — there would 
develop a clash between the supporters of the In- 
dustrial Commonwealth and those favoring individual 
enterprise. On the part of Socialists there is a most 
amazing conviction that when their Collectivist State had 
been ushered in, there would at once be a cessation to all 
agitation — that the end of the struggle of mankind to 
improve their condition had been reached. But ever 
since man evoluted from the lowest depths of savagery, 
he has been afflicted with "divine discontent/' and there 
is no reason for supposing that he would lose this char- 
acteristic under the reign of King Demos. 

In addition to these opposing economic forces, there 
would inevitably grow up an ever-increasing antagonism 
to the Socialist State based on the ineradicable love of 
personal liberty. Individualism would be bound to assert 
itself. Men would never permanently accept without 
protest a despotism greater than that of the Russian 
Czars, merely because it was labelled "Socialism." And 
the State, to be effective in its role of the Universal, 
Monopolistic, Exclusive Employer and Boss, would have 
to be despotic ; it could not with safety to its own exist- 
ence be tolerant to minorities or opposition of any kind ; 
and being despotic, it would work its own doom. In 
fact, even now, in its attitude toward opposition, Social- 
ism is arrogantly intolerant. Socialists, as a rule, are 
conspicuous for their unfairness and self-sufficiency in 
controversy. They allow no one to differ from them. 

Even the latter-day "trimming" apologists of Socialism 
who deny that it has anything to do with religion or 
ethics, admit or boast that it means far more than a mere 
change of employers — from the Capitalist to the State. 
In its full conception, even economically, Collectivism 



CONCLUSION: A CRITICISM 325 

implies a new and fundamental change in every-day life 
in the relations of the individual toward other individuals 
and toward the State, and inversely so. The State would 
either be a tyrannical task-master or a dole-giver ; if the 
first, it would be hated; in the latter case it would be 
soon "sucked dry." From either point of view, Collec- 
tivism would be bound to collapse — either through as- 
saults from without or through its own inherent weak- 
ness and lack of substance. 

The natural tendency would be for the Socialist State 
— the triumphant majority, for the time being — to be 
despotic and to be indifferent to the views and rights of 
the minority. No writer in the English language has a 
greater right to be accepted as an authoritative exponent 
of pure, unadulterated Marxian Collectivism than Mr. 
Belfort Bax, and in his Ethics of Socialism that gentle- 
man lays it down that — 

The only public opinion, the only will of the majority, 
which has any sort of claim on the recognition of the Social- 
ist in the present day, is that of the majority of those who 
have like aspirations with him, who have a definite conscious- 
ness of certain aims — in other words, the will of the majority 
of the European Socialist party. 

. . The practical question finally presents itself: What 
is the duty of the convinced Socialist towards the present 
mechanical majority — say of the English nation — a majority 
mainly composed of human cabbage-stalks, the growth of the 
suburban villa and the slum, respectively? The answer is, 
Make use of it wherever possible without loss of principle, 
but where this is not possible disregard it. The Socialist has 
a distinct aim in view. If he can carry the initial stages 
towards its realization by means of the count-of-heads ma- 
jority, by all means let him do so. If, on the other hand, 
he sees the possibility of carrying a salient portion of his 
programme by tramping on this majority, by all means let 
him do this also. 



326 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

No old fossilized Tory member of the hereditary British 
House of Lords ever gave expression to such undemo- 
cratic sentiments; and yet Mr. Bax is the great literary 
expounder of the doctrines of the British Social Demo- 
cratic Party, the repository of the undiluted and un- 
tainted full-fledged Marxism! 

No class of people are louder in demanding their 
"rights" than are the Socialists, but this is how they will 
treat opposition when they get into power, according to 
another "intellectual" advocate, Prof. Karl Pearson, in 
The Ethics of Free-thought: 

Socialists have to inculcate that spirit which would give 
offenders against the State short shrift and the nearest lamp- 
post. 

Sidney Webb is accepted in both America and England 
as entitled to speak for Socialism. He is frank enough 
to acknowledge {Fabian Tracts, No. 51) as to conditions 
under Collectivism: 

If a man wants freedom to work or not to work just as he 
likes, he had better emigrate to Robinson Crusoe's island, or 
else become a millionaire. To suppose that the industrial 
affairs of a complicated industrial State can be run without 
strict subordination and discipline, without obedience to 
orders, and without definite allowances for maintenance, is 
to dream not of Socialism but of Anarchism. 

So, likewise, that even more brilliant Socialist, H. G. 
Wells {Fortnightly Review, November, 1906), contro- 
verts the assumption of some enthusiasts that "natural 
impulses and the native goodness of man" will be suffi- 
cient to run the affairs of the Industrial Commonwealth. 



CONCLUSION: A CRITICISM 327 

Mr. H. M. Hyndman is a graduate of Oxford, is the 
founder of the British Social Democratic Party, and has 
given his private fortune and all his life to propagating 
and defending the principles of Revolutionary Socialism. 
He does not indulge in the delusion so common among 
working men that Collectivism is another name for "Lib- 
erty Hall," where every man will be permitted to do just 
as he likes, or do nothing if such be his will, and get well 
paid for doing anything or nothing. In a lecture in 
London in 1904 on "Social Democracy/' Mr. Hyndman 
said: 

But do not let us forget that in so far as this tends simply 
to State control it may mean the control of a bureaucracy 
and the domination of experts. That entails with it a sort 
of qualified slavery. 

. . . There is no more offensive prig than a bureaucrat, 
none more wholly impervious to reason when his conceit of 
himself is threatened. 

The learned Prof. Flint, of Edinburgh, is not a Social- 
ist, but he is admittedly a fair critic. He declares (So- 
cialism, pp. 373 and 374) : 

Socialism of its very nature so absorbs the individual in 
society as to sacrifice his rights to its authority. ... It 
denies to the individual any rights independent of society, and 
assigns to society authority to do whatever it deems for its 
own good with the persons, faculties, and possessions of indi- 
viduals. It undertakes to relieve individuals of what are 
manifestly their own moral responsibilities, and proposes to 
deprive them of the means of fulfilling them. It would place 
the masses of mankind completely at the mercy of a com- 
paratively small and highly centralized body of organizers 
and administrators entrusted with such powers as no human 
hands can safely or righteously wield. 



328 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

Dr. Schaffle, the Austrian economist, whose Quintes- 
sence of Socialism is a classic accepted by Socialists 
themselves, points out in that remarkable exposition of 
Marxism that under Collectivism (which he afterwards 
demonstrated was an impossibility) — "The producers 
would still be, individually, no more than workmen. 
. . . The only difference would be that they would 
be completely at the mercy of their foremen." 

The individual would find that not only would he be 
limited to one employer — the State, or the Collective 
Commonwealth, or the Committee of Administration of 
Things, or whatever might be the name of the Com- 
munal authority — but that his personal liberty was all 
gone. He would be labelled and numbered and bar- 
racked ; he would be shorn of all individuality ; he would 
be watched, reported upon, registered and inspected ; his 
goings out and incomings would all be recorded; he 
would have to accept whatever uniform the Bureau on 
Dress prescribed for him; he would have to take lean 
meat when he wanted fat, and mutton when he preferred 
beef; if he desired a change of climate he would have 
to make dutiful request for it, and would not dare to go 
away unless he secured permission; he would have to 
work in a foundry when he wanted to be a carpenter ; he 
would be discontented because his neighbor had a better 
house to live in than the Committee had assigned to him ; 
he could not own anything without a license; he could 
not do an odd job to earn a little extra money; he would 
not be allowed to trade off or sell anything ; he could not 
do anything of his own free will except — Revolt! And 
revolt he would. The pendulum would swing from the 
slavishness of Collectivism to the unrestrained freedom 
of absolute Individualism — Anarchy! And if he failed 



CONCLUSION: A CRITICISM 329 

in his rebellion, Absolutism would be enthroned. Such 
would be the ultimate end of Socialism ! 

Socialism is an impossibility for two reasons — and 
many others might be named, but these are sufficient: 

(1) It could never be established. The wisest of 
Marxians have utterly failed — some admittedly — to elu- 
cidate how the private productive property of a nation 
could be turned into collective property ; and it should be 
kept in mind that according to its very nature, Socialism, 
even from a theoretical standpoint, must be world-wide 
to be logical and successful. If the State attempted the 
transfer of property or capital by confiscation there 
would be civil war ; if it attempted honest payment, bank- 
ruptcy would follow. 

(2) It could never be administered. The State would 
be utterly unable to keep the gigantic machinery of mod- 
ern Industrialism going. No official bureau would be 
vast enough or efficient enough to do the bookkeeping 
required, to decide upon the quantity and quality, the, na- 
ture and style of the different products, and to meet the 
infinite variety of tastes and necessities of the citizens. 
Neither could any Collectivist system be devised to satis- 
factorily assign labor according to its ability or prefer- 
ence, or to provide for its equitable compensation. It is 
inconceivable that there would not be favoritism in as- 
signments to labor; and there would inevitably be in- 
equality and injustice in compensation. 

There is no force in the Socialist reply to these objec- 
tions, that citizens now-a-days have satisfactory relations 
with the State in regard to official positions : for they 
enter the Government service of their own free-will and 



330 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

accord, and if they do not like it they are at perfect lib- 
erty to resign and to enter the service of a private indi- 
vidual or a private corporation; but under Collectivism 
there would be only one employer, one buyer of Labor — 
the State; and if the citizen were unsatisfied with either 
his assignment to labor or his compensation, he would 
have no remedy, as there would be no position open to 
him outside the State. 

But even though Collectivism in its full conception 
could be established and administered, it would be a 
calamity past description. It would be contrary to and 
eternally antagonistic to human nature. All Individual- 
ism would be killed ; the private understanding and con- 
ception of things would be absolutely destroyed ; and the 
individual would become the mere creature, the slave, of 
the State. There could be no appeal from Caesar : What- 
ever the State decreed, that the citizen must do; instead 
of the State being an aggregation of individual units, it 
would be One Indivisible Whole, composed of indistin- 
guishable human atoms ; the State would be the Monopo- 
listic Task-master and Employer — the Universal Buyer 
and Seller, the Arbiter of Fashion, and the Sole Custo- 
dian of Life and Liberty. All individual freedom would 
be gone, for the State would not — and could not for its 
own safety — tolerate any interference with its absolute 
and sovereign prerogatives. To protest peaceably would 
be impossible, for the State would own all the printing 
presses, type and paper, and the other accessories of pub- 
lication ; and the State would never permit its own prop- 
erty to be used for its own destruction. Necessarily, no 
book, no magazine, no pamphlet, no newspaper, no leaf- 
let, could be printed without having passed the govern- 



CONCLUSION: A CRITICISM 331 

ment censor ; and the same is true of all messages by the 
telegraph and telephone systems, for the State would 
own all these. 

Ethically, the establishment of Socialism would be the 
greatest misfortune which could overtake the human 
race. It would entirely extinguish all those qualities 
which have distinguished the most progressive and civil- 
ized nations : individuality, personal responsibility and 
independence, the spirit of self-help and self-reliance, 
thrift, industry, initiative, enterprise, persistence, ambi- 
tion, hope, patriotism, courage. It would make of the 
citizens a horde of lazy, hopeless and dissatisfied paupers, 
as already is the tendency manifesting itself under the 
operation of the dole-giving poor-law and non-contribu- 
tory pension system now in full blast in England. There 
the working class have become inoculated with the 
wretched and character-destroying poison that the State 
is the Universal Provider. A nation which adopts this 
as its ideal must inevitably perish from the face of the 
earth, and deservedly so. It would likely starve to 
death, or its people would become the under-strappers or 
even slaves of some strong race which had retained the 
attributes of real virile manhood; or it would find its 
fate in a cataclysm of Civil War and Anarchy, ending in 
a Military Absolutism! 

All this is on the assumption that the effects of Social- 
ism would be merely economic. But let the Collective 
Commonwealth be such as that contemplated by Marx 
and his disciples: then religion would be banished from 
the earth; then the fear and love of God would be no 
more; gone would be the hope of Immortality; and not 



332 WHAT IS SOCIALISM? 

even the sweet relationship of man and wife and parent 
and children, as now understood, would be left. 

Yet Socialism has its good side, although with charac- 
teristic effrontery it appropriates to itself as its peculiar 
possession attributes and forces which have been in 
beneficent operation through the long centuries by men 
who never heard of Socialism, and by agencies which 
have always had the scorn and even hatred of the great- 
est of Socialists, from Marx and Engels to Bax and 
Bebel. 

Nevertheless, Socialism, extravagant and impracticable 
though it be, has played a great part and is entitled to its 
share of credit in the ever onward and upward move- 
ment, limited to no class, no creed, no nationality, no 
theory of government or economics, for the amelioration 
of the lot of the sons of toil, the righting of wrong wher- 
ever found, and the uplifting of the race to higher planes 
of life in all its aspects. 

But, as an universal condition of Society, as a panacea 
for present evils, as the hope of the proletariat, Social- 
ism, in its complete conception, is an absolute and a 
hideous impossibility. 



(finis) 



INDEX 

Aboriginal Communism, 49, 50. 

Abusiveness of Socialists, 20. 

Agrarian laws of Romans, 52. 

Aime, Victor, father of German Christian Socialism, 132. 

Aked, Rev., 129. 

Alliance, Socialist Trade and Labor, 85. 

"Allmend," the Swiss, 61. 

''Alpha and Omega" of Socialism, 21, 37, 322. 

Altgeld, Gov. John P., 196. 

American Federation of Labor; see Federation of Labor. 

American Institute of Christian Sociology, 129. 

American Political-Labor Movements, 75-78. 

American Railway Union, 186. 

American Socialism, 22-30; history of, 176-191 ; State Socialism, 
111-113; Christian Socialism, 127-130; German- Americans, 
178, 179; "International," 179-183; Socialist Labor Party, 
183-186; Socialist Party, 186-191; present outlook, 200-202. 

Anabaptist Communists, 90. 

Anarchism, varieties of, 43; compared with Socialism, 42, 43; in 
America, 192-200; see also Russian Socialism. 

Anarchists, schools of, different, 43. 

Ancient Lowly, The, 54, 57~59- 

Ancient Socialism, 49-63. 

Anglican Church and Socialism, 122, 123. 

Anti- Combination laws, 68. 

Anti-Socialist movement, 16, 17, 252-259. 

Atheism and Socialism, 127, 128, 189; Bebel on, 166; see also 
Ethics, Economics, Family and Religion. 

Athenian Socialism, 55-59, 9 1 , 3i6. 

Atlantis, New, Bacon's, 88. 

Austrian Socialism, 279-282. 

Aveling, Dr., son-in-law of Marx, 279. 

Aztecs, Communism among the, 59. 

s 

Babeuf, Francois Noel, Communism of, 275, 276. 

Bacon, Lord; his New Atlantis, 88. 

Baden-Powell, B. H.; on communal land ownership, 51. 

Bakounin, the Russian Anarchist, 182, 227, 286, 287, 307. 

Ball, John ; the first English Socialist, 210-213. 

333 , \ 



334 INDEX 

Baptists and Socialism, 128, 129. 

Bax, E. Belfort; on definitions of Socialism, 35-41; his denun- 
ciation of Fabianism, 40, 41 ; on the catastrophic theory, 
158; on Socialism and marriage, the family and ethics, 
166-168; the will of the majority, 325. 

Beaulieu, Paul Leroy; a critic of Marxism, 274. 

Bebel, Ferd. August; his definition of Socialism, 38; modification 
of his views, 136; on French Commune, 208; career, 267, 
268. 

Beesley, Prof. E. S., 226, 230. 

Belgium Socialism; Christian, 134; Revolutionary, 291-294. 

Bellamy's Looking Backward, 35, 89, 171 ; his "Nationalism," 89, 
90. 

Berger, Victor, first Socialist Congressman, 29, 177. 

Bernstein, a critic of Marxism, 145, 272, 274. 

Besant, Mrs. Annie, Agnostic and Socialist, 46, 190, 231, 249, 309. 

Bible, the, and private property, 51, 52. 

"Bible of Socialism, The," 137. 

Bismarck; his State Socialism, 36, 102, 103, 271; coercive meas- 
ures, 270, 271. 

"Black Death," the, 212. 

Blane, Louis, the first State Socialist, 276, 277. 

Blatchford, Robert; his description of ideal Socialism, 45; his 
fear of German invasion, 230. 

Bliss, Rev. Dr. ; his definition of Socialism, 37 ; on Athenian So- 
cialism, 55, 56; pioneer American Christian Socialist, 128; 
on Scientific Socialism, 140, 143. 

Bouche de Fer, first Socialist paper, 133. 

Bradlaugh, Charles, on Socialism, 5, 231, 321. 

"Brethren of the Common Life," 90. 

Briand, M., French Premier, 278, 279. 

Brisbane, Albert, a follower of Fourier, 95. 

British Socialism, 203-259; Opportunist, 22; politics and Trade 
Unionism, 65-69; Trades Disputes Act, 69, 71, 72; Labor 
revolt of 1911, 72-75; State Socialism, 106-110; Christian 
Socialism, 123-126; characteristics, 203-207; its origin, 207- 
210; John Ball, the pioneer, 210-213; the "Industrial Revo- 
lution," 213-215; the "Luddites," 215-217; the "Chartists," 
217-223; the "International," 223-227; "Social Democratic 
Federation," 227-236; "Fabianism," 236-239; Independent 
Labor Party, 239-244; Labor Party, 244-248; Trade 
Unionism submerged by Socialism, 248-252; has Social- 
ism been halted? 252-256; the anti-Socialist movement, 
256-259. 

"Brook Farm," 96. 

"Brotherhood of the Kingdom," 128, 129. 

Bureau, the International Socialist, 190, 249, 291, 309. 

Burns, John, Labor member of the British Cabinet, 231. 



INDEX 335 

Cabet, £tienne; his "Voyage in Icaria," 88, 89; Utopian ex- 
periment, 89; holds that Christianity is Communism, 133. 

Campanula's City of the Sun, 88. 

Capital, Marx's, 21, 37, 137-139, 144, 146, 210. 

Capital under Socialism, 323. 

Capitalism; commencement of, 68, 214; the Marxian view of, 
I4S-I54. 

"Catastrophic Theory," 23, 158, 159, 272. 

Catholic Church and Socialism, 59, 90, 121, 122, 130-132, 307. 

Cathrein, Victor, Jesuit critic, 92, 275. 

Chambly, Comte de, 133. 

"Chartists," 123, 208, 217-223. 

Chicago Anarchists, 193-197. 

Christianity and Socialism, 58, 127, 128, 133, 134. 

Christian Sociology, Institute of, 129. 

Christian Social Union, 125, 128. 

Christian Socialism, 22 y 121-134; the churches and, 121; in Eng- 
land, 123-126; in America, 127-130; Continental, 130-134. 

Christian Socialist League, National, 130. 

Christian Socialists, Society of, 128. 

Churches and Socialism, 121- 123, 126. 

Clarke, Wm., on manager and capitalist, 148, 149. 

Classes, under Socialism, 45-47. 

"Class Consciousness," 22, 25, 27, 29, 68, 73, 74, 77, 177, 185, 200, 
211, 271. 

Clemenceau, M. ; his opinion of the English working-class, 252. 

Collectivism, 21, 2% 36, 37, 103, 145, 146, 149, 150; how will it be 
established? 154, 161; never a true Collectivist State, 62, 
63, 314; destructive to individualism, 315, 316, 327, 328; im- 
possibility of establishing and administering, 329-332. 

Combinations; industrial, 28, 153, 188, 189; labor, 69. 

Common lands, 60-62. 

Commons, Prof. John Rogers, 129. 

Communism; compared with Socialism, 42-45; "the final goal of 
Socialism," 48; aboriginal, 49, 50; Marx on, 46-48; in Ire- 
land, 60, 61. 

Communist League, 225, 226. 

Communist Manifesto, of Marx and Engels, 44, 78, 136, 137, 144, 
148, 161, 165, 225. 

Compensation, question of, 45-48, 269, 270. 

Confiscation, under Socialism, 109, 157, 158. 

Congressional grants, socialistic, 112. 

"Constructive" Socialism; see Fabianism and Opportunism. 

"Consumption" goods, 44, 45. 

Continental Socialism, 64, 260-306; Christian, 130-134. 

Co-operation; Owen's schemes, 32; Christian Socialist, 123-125; 
in Belgium, 292, 293; Holland, 295; Switzerland, 298; 
Denmark, 301. 



336 INDEX 

Co-operative Commonwealth; see Collectivism. 
Coulanges, Fustel de, refutes Laveleye's theories, 51. 

Darwinism and Socialism, 315. 

"Davidists," 90. 

Davidson, Thomas; his relation to the foundation of Fabianism, 

237- 
"Death Duties" (British), 109, no. 

Debs, Eugene V., American Socialist leader, 186, 187, 190, 205. 
Definitions of Socialism, 34-38. 

De Leon, Daniel, Revolutionary Socialist leader, 205. 
Democracy of America, Social, 186. 
Democratic Federation, Social (English), 228-236. 
Democratic Party, Social; see Socialist Party — American. 
Denmark, co-ownership in, 61 ; Socialism in, 300-302. 
Diderot on the Russian people, 285. 
Different Kinds of Socialism, 20-22, 34, 35. 
Diocletian, the destroyer of Solonic Socialism, 59. 
Distribution of Labor's products; see Wages under Socialism. 
Dorians, institutions of the, 54. 

Economics, Socialism not limited to, 161-170. 

"Economic Determinism"; see "Materialistic Conception of His- 
tory." 

"Economy," Community of, 99. 

Eight hours, 179, 194, 197, 232, 242. 

Ely, Prof. R. T., on materialism of Socialism, 19, 20; on Marx's 
theory of values, 141, 142; on Lassalle, 267; Louis Blanc's 
failure, 276, 277. 

Engels, Friedrich, co-founder with Marx of Scientific Socialism; 
compiler of Capital, 21, 138, 139; on English Opportunism, 
23, 206; Communism, 44; German- American Socialism, 22, 
23 ; gives credit to Marx, 135 ; on Capitalism, 148 ; presents 
the "Marginal Notes," 272. 

England, Municipal Socialism in, 114; "Industrial Revolution" 
in, 213-215 ; see also British Socialism. 

England, Church of, and Socialism, 122-126; see also Christian 
Socialism. 

English Opportunism; Engels on, 22, 23; see also Fabian So- 
cialism. 

English Origin of Socialism, 31, 32, 207-210. 

Episcopal Church, Protestant, and Socialism, 122, 128; see also 
Christian Socialism. 

Equality, Bellamy's, 89. 

Equality of remuneration under Socialism, 45-48. 

Erfurt Platform, 272. 

Ethics and Socialism, 15-20, 38, 161-170, 189, 235, 331. 

Evans, the brothers, 75. 

Evolutionary theory, I35- I 37- 

Experimental Utopianism, 90-101. 



INDEX 337 

"Fabian Essays," 148; Spargo on, 39, 40. 

Fabian Socialism, 22, 24, 36, 39, 41, 204, 236-239. 

"Familists," 90. 

Family, the; private property and, 50; under Socialism, 17, 20, 
50, 51, 161-166, 189, 235, 331. 

Farmers' Alliance, 77. 

Fauchet, Claude, 133. 

Federation, Democratic (English), 228. 

Federation of Labor and Socialism, 42, 78-85. 

Fichte, Johann Gottlieb, early German Socialist, 263. 

Finland, Socialism in, 290, 291. 

Fischer, Adolph, Chicago Anarchist, 195, 196. 

Flint, Prof. Robert, on definitions of Socialism, 34, 36; on Las- 
salle's Law of Wages, 267; on individualism under So- 
cialism, 327. 

Fourier; his Utopian schemes, 93-97. 

Frazier, J. G., on Athenian Socialism, 56, 57. 

French Socialism; Christian, 133, 134; Revolutionary, 275-279. 

"Fundamentals," the Marxian, 135-137. 

Gall, Heinrich Ludwig, the first German Socialist, 263. 

Gapon, Father, 288. 

Garibaldi, 283. 

Gary, Judge, on the Chicago Anarchists, 197. 

George, Henry, on Socialism, 17; his land tax theory, 78, 227. 

German Labor Association (American), 181. 

German "Marke," the, 62. 

Germany, Socialism as a product of, 224. 

German Socialism, 22, 132, 133, 260-275. 

German State Socialism, 102-104. 

Gibbons, John, LL.D., on private property, 53. 

Glasier, J. Bruce, editor of the Labor Leader (England), 244. 

Gompers, Samuel, and Socialism, 5, 79-81, 85. 

"Gotha Programme," 46, 143, 144, 269, 272. 

Grayson, Victor, Marxian M. P., 234; on private property under 

Socialism, 322. 
Greece, Socialism in, 306; see also Athenian Socialism. 
Green, John Richard, on John Ball, 211. 
Greenback Party, 78. 

Guilds, ancient trade, 66, 214, 215; Belgian, 293. 
Guild of St. Matthew, 125, 229. 

Hammurabi, Code of, 52, 53. 

Hanna, Mark, on the coming conflict, 30. 

Harcourt, Sir William, on Socialism, 35. 

Hardie, Keir ; his orthodoxy questioned, 42, 201 ; on Commun- 
ism, 48 ; founder of Labor Party, 241, 243, 244 ; member of 
Parliament, 247 ; on the "class struggle," 240. 

"Harmonists" (or "Harmonites"), 32, 94, 98. 



338 INDEX 

"Haymarket" Anarchists, 183, 192-197. 

Headlam, Rev. Stewart; founder of the Guild of St. Matthew, 
231. 

Headley, F. W., on the new Socialism, 315, 316. 

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm, German philosopher, 263. 

"Henry Georgeism," 78, 227. 

Herron, Prof. G. D., 129, 130. 

Hertzen, Alexander; Russian Socialist, 285; his renunciation of 
Nihilism, 286, 287. 

Hillquit, Morris; his criticism of Samuel Gompers, 80; of the 
Federation of Labor, 83-85 ; on Marx's theory of values, 
142, 143; the establishment of Collectivism, 157; on the 
"time-basis" of payment, 173-175; on Lassalle, 267. 

Holland, Socialism in, 294-296. 

Huber, Victor Aime; social reformer, 263. 

Huet, Prof. Francois ; Belgian Christian Socialist, 134. 

"Humanitarianism," 34. 

Human nature and Socialism, 316, 317, 321, 324, 330. 

Hungarian Socialism, 279-282. 

Hunter, Robert, on Italian Socialism, 282. 

Hyndman, Henry Mayers; leader of British Marxism, 229, 230, 
233, 234; preaches "class hatred," 74; opposes English 
Labor Party, 250, 252; on conditions under Socialism, 327. 

Icarian Movement, Cabet's, 88, 89, 97. 

Ideal Communism, 90-101. 

Impossibility of Social Democracy, Schaffie's, 282. 

Income Tax (British), 109. 

Independent Labor Party (British), 239-244. 

India, communal villages in, 51. 

Individualism, 34; under Socialism, 324, 327, 328, 330, 331. 

Individual rights, Anarchistic idea of, 42. 

Industrial Commonwealth; see Collectivism. 

"Industrial Revolution," 27, 150-161, 213-223. 

Industrial Trusts; see Combinations. 

Initiative, Referendum and Recall, 188, 232. 

Institute of Christian Sociology, 129. 

Insurance, workmen's, 103-108, 114, 188. 

Insurrectionary Communism, 24, 25. 

"Insurrection, the Welsh," 221. 

"Intellectual Opportunists"; see Fabian Socialism. 

International Socialism, 38, 84, 181, 187, 224, 225, 249, 250, 307; 

see also Marxian Socialism. 
"International," the; in America, 179-183; its origin, 225-227; in 

England, 223-227; the new, 249, 250, 307-310. 
Internationalist Socialist Bureau, 190, 249, 309. 
Internationalist Socialist Review; criticism of the British Labor 

Party, 201, 202. 
Inter-Parliamentary Committee, 309, 310. 



INDEX 339 

Intolerance of Socialists, 20, 192, 245, 324-327. 
Ireland; ancient common property in, 60; strike in, 73; Social- 
ism in, 203, 248. 
"Iron Economic Law," Lassalle's, 266, 267. 
Italian Socialism, 282-284. 

Japan, Socialism in, 60. 

Jaures, Jean Leon, a critic of Marx, 274. 

Java, collective ownership in, 62. 

Jesuits, their Paraguayan "reductions," 90-92. 

Jevons on Value, 140. 

Journals, abusiveness of Socialist, 20. 

Kapital, Das, Marx's; see Capital. 

Kantsky, compiler of Marx's works, 21; on compromise, 206; a 
strict Marxian, 272, 274; supports the English Labor Party, 
250. 

Kettler, von, Bishop, founder of German Catholic Christian So- 
cialism, 132. 

Kingsley, Charles, and the Chartists, 123-125, 132, 218. 

Kirkup, Thomas; his view of values, 144; on the Chartists, 217; 
on the "Iron Law," 267. 

Knights of Labor, 77, 78, 85. 

Labor, as the source of wealth, 32, 208, 269; see also Values. 

Labor and Socialism, 17, 25-29, 64, 65 ; see also Trade Unionism. 

Labor combinations, 69. 

Labor, Federation of, and Socialism, 78-85. 

Labor, Knights of, 77, 78, 85. 

Labor, Marxian theory of; see Values. 

Labor National Union, 76, 77, 179. 

Labor platform, first American, 76. 

Labor Party (English), 243-248, 250, 251. 

Labor Party, Independent (English) 239-244. 

Labor Party, Socialist (American), 183-186. 

Labor-Political Movement (American), 75-78; the start in Eng- 
land, 69. 

Labor Reform Party, 180. 

Labor Representation (Legislative) ; see Parliamentary Repre- 
sentation. 

Labor Representation Committee (English), 71, 243, 244. 

Labor revolt of 191 1 (English), 72-75- 

Labor under serfdom, 68, 69. 

Laborers, statutes of, 67-69. 

Lafargue, M. ; his definition of Socialism ; his suicide, 279. 

Lamennais, Abbe de, 133- 

Land, ancient Communism in, 51-54, 60-62. 

Land "Nationalization," 78; see also State Socialism. 

Land Values; see "Henry Georgeism." 



340 INDEX 

Lassalle, Ferdinand, "father of Social Democracy," 264-267. 

Laveleye, Emile de; on land ownership, 51; his opinion of 
Huet, 134. 

League, National Christian Socialist, 130. 

"League of the Just," 224. 

League, Communist, 225, 226. 

Le Rossignol, Prof.; on inequality of man, 49; on Marx's con- 
ception of history, 140. 

Leroux, Pierre, and origin of word "Socialism," 34. 

Lesseps, Vicomte de, 93. 

"Libertines," 90. 

Liebknecht, Wilhelm; on the wage system, 156; one of the 
founders of Marxism, 267, 268. 

Lingg, Louis, Chicago Anarchist, 196. 

London Municipal Society; anti-Socialist, 258. 

Los Angeles Times, dynamiting of, 191, 199, 200. 

Looking Backward, by Bellamy, 89, 171. 

"Luddites," the, 215-217. 

Lycurgus, his division of land, 54. 

McNamara Outrages, 199, 200. 

McNeill, George E. ; founder of the K. of L. and A. F. L., 77. 

"Made in Germany," Socialism as, 224. 

Magna Charta, 67. 

Maine, Sir Henry; his theory as to land ownership, 51. 

Mais on du Peuple, 293. 

Majorities and Socialism, 325. 

Man, The, first American Labor paper, 75. 

Mann, Tom; on solidarity of Labor, 74; leader of English labor 
outbreak, 231. 

"Marke," the German, 62. 

Marriage, 50, 51 ; see also Ethics and Religion. 

Marx, Karl; "father of Modern Socialism," 31; his definition of 
Socialism, 36; author of Communist Manifesto, 43, 44; and 
of Capital, 137-139; on remuneration under Socialism, 46- 
48; his theory of Surplus^ Value, 146; on Capitalism, 148; 
on the Industrial Revolution, 150-154; his genius, 208; on 
the English people, 228; on Labor as the source of wealth, 
269; his daughters, 279. 

Marxian Socialism, 135-175; in^ America, 23; specifically, 35; the 
orthodox kind, 39-42; neither Anarchism nor Communism, 
42-44; the "fundamentals," 135-137; evolutionary theory, 
137; theory of Values, 141-147; Capitalism, 147-149; Col- 
lectivism, 149, 150; the "Industrial Revolution " 150-161 ; 
as affecting religion and the family, 161-166; involves 
ethics, 166-170; as to reward of labor, 170-175. 

"Materialistic Conception of History," 18-20, 135- 137. 

Matthew, St. Guild of, 125. 

Maurice and Kingsley; Christian Socialists, 123-125, 218, 222. 



INDEX 341 

Mazzini, 283. 

"Means of production," 38. 

Merrie England, Blatchford's, 40. 

Mexico, Communism in, 59. 

Middle Ages, condition of Labor in the, 210. 

Mill, John Stuart; his definition of Socialism, 37; opinion of 
Fourierism, 96, 97; how he was affected by French So- 
cialism, 275. 

Milwaukee elects a Socialist Mayor, 29. 

Miners, Western Federation of, 198; English Federation, 249. 

Minimum wage, 67. 

Minorities, rights of, 42. 

"Mir," the Russian, 61, 62, 286. 

Mitchell, John, and "Wage Slavery," 70, 80. 

"Modern" Socialism; its beginning, 215; see Marxian Socialism. 

Monarchism and Socialism, 299, 303, 306. 

Money under Socialism, 45, 175, 323. 

Morality and Socialism, 15-20; 161-166, 189, 235, 331; see also 
Ethics and Religion. 

Morelly, French revolutionary philosopher, 275. 

More's Utopia, 35, 87. 

Morris, William, the artist-poet of Socialism, 40, 41 ; ridicules 
Marx's "catastrophic theory," 158; on John Ball, 213; 
founder of the Socialist League, 235; see also Bax. 

Moyer-Haywood murder case, 197-199. 

Most, John, Anarchist, 194. 

Municipal Socialism, 36, 105; in England, 114- 119; see also State 
Socialism. 

Municipal officials, Socialist, 311. 

Mun, Comte de; Catholic Christian Socialist, 133. 

"Nationalism," Bellamy's, 89. 

Nationalization of railroads, etc. ; see State Socialism, and Col- 
lectivism. 

National Christian Socialist League, 130. 

National Labor Union, 76, 77, 179-181. 

National Reform Party, 180, 181. 

"National Workshops" (French), 276. 

"Needs, to each according to his," 48; the Athenian rule, 55; 
Hillquit on, 174, 175; see also Compensation. 

New Atlantis, by Lord Bacon, 88. 

"New Christianity," Saint-Simon, 93. 

"New Fellowship," 237. 

"New Harmony," 94, 98. 

"New Trade Unionism, The," 65. 

Newspapers under Socialism, 89, 330. 

Niebuhr, Prof., on agrarian laws, 52. 

Nieuwenhuis, Rev. F. D., founder of Dutch Socialism, 294. 

Nihilism, Russian, 284, 285. 



342 INDEX 

Norway, Socialism in. 302, 303. 

Noyes, John Humphrey, founder of the Oneida Community, 98. 

O'Connell, Daniel, and the "Chartists," 219. 

O'Connor, Feargus, leader of the Chartists, 218-222. 

Ohio, Socialist gains in, 191. 

Old-age pensions; German, 102, 103; British, 107, 108; in Amer- 
ica, 114, 118. 

Olivier, Sir Sidney, a Socialist Governor, 231. 

Oneida Community, 98-100. 

"Opportunism," 22, 23, 36, 204; see also Fabian Socialism. 

Organized Labor; see Federation of Labor, and Trade Union- 
ism. 

Origin of the word "Socialism," 34. 

Origin of Modern Socialism, 207-210, 215, 217; see also Robert 
Owen. 

"Orthodox" Socialism, 19, 39-42. 

"Osborne decision," 66. 

Owen, Robert, "father of Modern Socialism," 30-33; pioneer of 
Utopianism, 93, 94, 215. 

Paraguay, "reductions" of, 90-92. 

Parliamentary, Inter-, Committee, 309, 310. 

Parliamentary representation, 28, 29, 71, 177, 243-248, 309-311. 

Parsons, Albert R., Chicago Anarchist, 183, 194-196. 

Pauperism, universal, under Socialism, 331. 

Pawnshop, municipal, 115, 116. 

Pearson, Prof. Karl; on offenders against the Socialist State. 
326. 

"Peasants' Revolt," 211-213. 

"People's Charter"; see "Chartists." 

"Perfectionists," 98, 99. 

Pericles, Socialism under, 55-57. 

Personal liberty under Socialism, 324-328. 

Peru, Communism in, 59. 

"Phalanxes" of Fourier, 94-97. 

"Picketing," 71, 75. 

Plato's Republic, 35, 86, 87. 

Poland, 291. 

Political-Labor movement (American), 75-78. 

Poor Man's Guardian; first publication to use the word "Social- 
ism," 34. 

Populist Party, 89, 177. 

Portugal, Socialism in, 306. 

Postal Savings Banks, 112. 

Potash trade (German), socialistic scheme as to, 274, 275. 

Potter, Beatrice, on the "Chartists," 219. 

Powderly, Terence V., 85. 



INDEX 343 

Press, Socialist; abusiveness of, 20, 187, 195; extent of, 312; no 

free, under Socialism, 330. 
Primitive society, 49, 50. 
Private property; under Anarchism, 42, 43; the family and, 50- 

53; the Bible and, 51; Proudhon's declaration as to, 277 ; 

under Socialism, 322. 
"Production" goods, 44. 
Proletariat, the; in America, 25, 28; in Europe, 27 \ in ancient 

days, 58; Marx on, 152, 156; coming of, 214; of the world, 

. 309.. 

Providential intervention, denial of, 165. 

Protective tariff, 112. 

Protestant (German) Christian Socialism, 132, 133. 

Protestantism and Socialism, 121-123, 126, 128, 211. 

Proudhon, Pierre Joseph ; his definition of Socialism, 35 ; his 

ideal society, 277, 278. 
Public Ownership ; see State Socialism, and Collectivism. 
Public utilities, and Socialism, 111-120, 319; see also Collectivism, 

and State Socialism. 

Quelch, Henry; Revolutionary Socialist, 231, 234, 235. 
Quintessence of Socialism, Schafrle's, .37, 282. 

Rae, Prof., on Municipal Ownership, 114, 115; Marxian theory of 

Values, 145. 
Railroads, public and private ownership of, 113, 114. 
Railway Union, American, 186. 
"Rappists," 94, 100, 101. 
"Reductions" of Paraguay, 90-92. 
Referendum, Initiative, and Recall, 188, 190, 232; in Switzerland, 

298; in Norway, 303. 
Reform, Social, as distinct from Socialism, 78, 132, 294, 320, 321, 

332. 
Religion and the family, 15-20, 161-166, 189, 235, 331; see also 

Family. 
Remuneration under Socialism, 45-48, 269, 270. 
Representation, legislative; see Parliamentary representation. 
Republic of Plato, 35, 86, 87. 
Republican Party and Socialism, in, 112. 
"Revisionists," 272, 296. 
Revolution, immanence of, 24, 25. 
Revolutionary Socialism, 22-25 ; see also Marxian Socialism, and 

Collectivism. 
Reybaud and the word "Socialism," 34. 
Ricardo; English, political economist, 144, 207, 208. 
"Right to work," 102, 103, 189, 204, 276. 
Rodbertus, Johann Karl; pioneer Socialist, 263, 264. 
Rogers, Thorold; statistician-economist, 210. 



344 INDEX 

Roman Agrarian laws, 52. 

Roman Catholic Church and Socialism; see Catholic Church. 

Romantic Socialism, 86-90. 

Roosevelt, Ex-President, on Socialism, 15, 17, 18, 20; as a State 

Socialist, in; on "undesirable citizens," 199. 
Rosebery, Lord, on Socialism, 15. 
Russia, the "Mir" in, 61; Municipal Socialism in, 61, 119, 120; 

Revolutionary Socialism in, 284-291. 

St. Matthew, Guild of, 125. 

Saint-Simon; founder of French Socialism, 92, 93, 133. 

Schaffle, Dr.; his definition of Socialism, 37; on Surplus Value, 
147; on establishment of Collectivism, 157; as exponent 
and critic of Socialism, 281, 282. 

Schools, varying, of Socialism, 20-22. 

"Scientific" Socialism ; see Marxian Socialism. 

Scope of Socialism, 18-20. 

Scotland and Socialism, 240, 241. 

Sectarian Communism, 92, 97-101. 

Secular Utopianism, 92-97. 

"Separatists," 98. 

Serfdom, labor under, 68, 69; Russian, 285. 

Sexual relations; see Family. 

Shaftesbury, Lord, "the workingman's friend," 31. 

"Shakers," 98. 

Shaw, Bernard, on the Marxians, 21, 39; leader of the Fabians, 
231 ; on Fabianism, 237. 

"Single tax"; ancient Japanese institution, 60; see also "Henry 
Georgeism." 

Skidmore, Thomas ; his agrarian preamble, 176. 

Slavery; under Athenian Socialism, 55, 56, 58, 63; in England, 
67-69, 212; under Collectivism, 327, 328, 330. 

Socialism; what is it? 34-48; relation to religion and morality, 
15-20, 161-166, 189, 235, 331; "purified," 20; variety of 
schools of, 20-22 ; one cardinal doctrine of, 21 ; in America, 
22-24, 26-30, 176-202; origin of the word, 34; Revolu- 
tionary, 24, 25, 42-44; definitions of, 34-38; orthodox, 39- 
42; Anarchism, Communism, and, 42-44, 47, 48; ancient. 
49-63; Athenian, 55-57; the "Solonic Law," 57-59; and 
the Federation of Labor, 78-85 ; and Trade Unionism, 25, 
26, 64-85; Utopian, 86-101; contrast between British and 
Continental, 131 ; Christian, 121-134; Marxian, I35-I75J 
State and Municipal, 102-118, 318; as affecting religion 
and the family, 161-166; ethically, 166-170; wages and dis- 
tribution of products, 170-175; English origin, 207-210; as 
"made in Germany," 223-225; numerical strength of, 310, 
311; the press of, 312; criticism of, 314-332; impossibility 
of, 329-332; a calamity, though possible, 330; in America, 
survey of, 176-202; in England, 203-259; Germany, 260- 



INDEX 345 

275; France, 275-279; Austria, 279-282; Italy, 282-284; 
Russia, 284-291; Belgium, 291-294; Holland, 294-296; 
Switzerland, 296-300; Denmark, 300-302; Norway, 302, 
303 ; Sweden, 303-305 ; Spain and Portugal, 305, 306 ; Sub- 
merges Trade Unionism (England), 248-252; "in- the 
making," 319, 320; personal property and capital under, 
322, 323; and the majority, 325, 326; individualism under, 
327, 328; the end of, 328, 329; the impossibility of, 331. 

Social Democracy of America, 186. 

Social Democratic Federation (English), 227-236, 255, 256. 

Social Democracy of Germany, 22, 261-274. 

Social Party, the, 181. 

Socialist Labor Party (American), 183-186. 

Socialist Party (American), 186-191. 

Solidarity of Labor, 73, 74, 180. 

"Solonic Law," 57-59. 

Spain, Socialism in, 305, 306. 

Spargo, John; on American Socialism, 22; his contempt for 
Fabianism, 39, 40; on remuneration under Socialism, 46; 
on Marx's theory of Values, 142; the Gotha Programme, 
143, 269; the establishment of Collectivism, 158, 159; Eng- 
lish origin of Socialism, 209, 210; the "Iron Law," 267. 

Spartan division of land, 54. 

Spies, August; Chicago Anarchist, 195, 196. 

"State Capitalism," 271 ; see also State Socialism. 

State Socialism, 36, 102-120; in Athens, 56; defined, 104-107; 
through taxing the rich, 106; Bismarck and, 102; relation 
of Marxists to, 103; German, 36, 102; British, 36, 106-111; 
American, in, 112; President Taft and, 112; in New 
Zealand, 113; in France; limitations of, 105, 106, 317-320; 
see also Collectivism. 

"Statutes of Laborers," 67-69, 212. 

Stead, Alfred, on Socialism in Japan, 60. 

Stephens, U. S., founder of K. of L. and A. F. of L., 78. 

Street railroads; comparison of American and English, 117-119. 

Strikes, in England, 26, 72-75 ; in Russia, 288 ; in Belgium, 293 ; 
in Sweden, 304; in America, 186, 192-194. 

Sun, City of the, Campanula's, 88. 

Supernatural, the denial of, 165. 

Supreme Court, limitation of power of, 190. 

"Surplus Value," 145-148, 208, 217; see also Values. 

"Sweated" labor, 67. 

Sweden, Socialism in, 303-305- 

Switzerland, the "Allmend" in, 61 ; Socialism m, 296-300. 

"Syndicalism," 73, 283. 

"Taff Vale Decision," 26, 69-71, 253. 
Taft, President, on State Socialism, 112. 
Thorne, Will, Socialist M. P., 234. 



346 INDEX 

'Time-basis" of payment, under Socialism, 173-175. 

Todt, Pastor, founder of German Protestant Christian Socialism, 

132. 
'Trades Disputes Act" (English), 27, 69, 71, 72, 75. 
Trade and Labor Alliance, Socialist, 85. 
Trade Unionism; American compared with English, 26, 27; in 

ancient days, 58, 59; the "new," 65, 66; and Socialism, 17, 

25, 64-85, 178, 202, 239, 240, 244, 248-252, 255, 259, 262, 308; 

British, 65-74; aggregate of members in the world, 313. 
Trusts; see Combinations. 
Turkey, Socialism in, 306. 
Tyler, Wat, leader of the "Peasants' Revolt," 212, 213. 

"Ultimate Aim" of Socialism, 27s. 

Union, Christian Socialist, 125, 128. 

Union, National Labor (American), 76, 77, 179. 

Untermann, Ernest, on the establishment of Collectivism, 155, 
156; editor of Capital, 139. 

Utility as the source of Value, 140, 143. 

"Utopia," Sir Thomas More's, 87. 

Utopian Socialism, 32, 35, 86-101; Romantic, 86-90; Experi- 
mental, 90-101. 

Values, theory of, 140-148, 217. 
Vandervelde, Emil; Belgian Socialist, 309. 
Varieties of Socialism, 20-22, 34, 39-42. 
Vaughan, Rev. Bernard, on Socialism, 223. 
Veblin, Prof. Thorstein ; his view of Marxian Socialism, 135. 
Villages, communal, 51, 61. 

Villiers, Brougham, 207, 210; on condition of English working- 
class, 215. m - 
Vincent, Henry, the "Demosthenes of Chartism," 220, 221. 
Vollmer, George von, a critic of Marx, 272. 
"Voyage in Icaria," Cabet's, 88. 

Wage, minimum, 67. 

Wages, under Socialism, 45-48, 1 70-175, 269, 270; in feudal times, 
67-69. 

Wagner, Prof. Adolph, on Rodbertus, 264. 

Ward, C. Osborne, on ancient Socialism, .54, 57-59- 

Wealth, arrogance of, in America, 28; Labor as source of, 208, 
269, 270; State does not produce, 318. 

Webb. Sidney, repudiated by Bax, 41; Trade Union writer, 231, 
233; as to conditions under Socialism, 326. 

Weitling, Wilhelm; Utopian Socialist, 264. 

Wells, H. G., 154; on different kinds of Socialism, 41; on con- 
ditions under Socialism, 326. 

"Welsh Insurrection, The," 221. 

Wilson, W. Lawler, on Revolutionary Socialism, 24, 25, 259. 



INDEX 347 

Women, Socialist, 203, 235, 274; in Finland, 291; in Denmark, 

301 ; anti-Socialist, 259. 
Workmen's Insurance; German, 103, 104; British, 108; in 

America, 188. 
Workingmen's College (London), 124. 
Workingmen's Party (American), 76. 

"ZoARITES," 36, 99. 



MAY 10 1912 



